Columbia  illniticr^ftp 

intlifCitpufllftngork 

THE  LIBRARIES 


ERNST    HAECKEL. 

From   the  Painting   by   Franz   von    Lenbach,    1899. 

(Reproduced   in       Jugend.  ") 


HAECKEL 


HIS    LIFE    AND    WORK 


BY 

WILHELM     BOLSCHE 


WITH    INTRODUCTION    AND    SUPPLEMENTARY    CHAPTER    BY    THE 

TRANSLATOR, 


JOSEPH     McCABE 


WITH   THIRTEEN   ILLUSTRATIONS 


PHILADELPHIA 
GEORGE    W.    JACOBS    &    CO. 

PUBLISHERS 


f  2-  /f // 

6 


{All  rights  reserved.) 


Contents 


Intboduction 


CHAPTER  I 

Early  Youth 

CHAPTEB  II 
At  the  University 

CHAPTER  ni 
The  Radiolaria 

CHAPTER  IV 

Darwin 


• 


4438S2 


9 


.    15 


.    51 


.    82 


.  102 


CHAPTER  V 

The  Scientific  Congress  of  1863  .  .  .  144: 

6 


6  CONTENTS 

CHAPTER  VI 

PAGE 

The  "General  Morphology"      ....  172 


CHAPTER  VII 

Growth  of  Ideas  ......  252 


CHAPTER  VIII 

The  Crowning  Years        .....  294 


Bibliography  ......  323 


Index  .......  329 


List  of  Illustrations 


-•o*- 


Haeckel  .... 

From  the  painting  by  Franz  von  Lenhach. 

Jena  .... 


.    Frontispiece 


Facing  p.  42 


A  Fishing  Party  in  Heligoland  in  1865 

Ernst   Haeckely    Anton    Dohrn,   Richard   Greef,   Max 
Salverda^  Pietro  Marchi. 

A  Eadiolaeian     ..... 
Haeckel   ...... 

From  the  bust  by  G.  Herold. 

Haeckel  in  1880.  .... 


>> 


70 


ft 


If 


ti 


94 


128 


154 


Haeckel  in  1890 

From  a  relief  by  Kopf. 

Haeckel's  Villa  at  Jena 


If 


)> 


178 


216 


Haeckel  and  his  Assistant  Miklucho-Maclay 
AT  Lanzakote,  in  THE  Canakies,  1867 


ft 


244 


8  LIST    OF    ILLUSTRATIONS 

A  SiPHONOPHORE.  ....  Facing  p.  248 

Haeckel  in  1874  .  .  .  .        „         272 

Haeckel  in  1896  .  .  .  .        „         292 

From  a  photograph  by  Gabriel  Max. 

Haeckel  and  a  Group  of  Italian  Professors 

AT  Genoa,  1904       .  .  .  .        „         300 


Introduction 


-- •<y»- 


ONE  of  the  admirable  maxims  that  crystallises 
the  better  sense  or  experience  of  men  reminds 
us  that  we  must  "  say  nothing  but  good  of  the 
dead."  Unhappily,  we  have  taken  the  words  of 
our  sage  fathers  in  too  large  a  sense.  A  feeling 
has  grown  amongst  us  that  we  should  ^^  say 
nothing  good  except  of  the  dead,"  at  least  as 
regards  those  who  differ  from  us.  So  has  many 
a  man  gone  from  the  world  with  little  suspicion  of 
the  appreciation  that  might  have  warmed  him  in 
the  last  chill  years ;  many  a  man  sunk  into  the 
grave  with  the  harsh  echo  of  dishonouring  words 
still  rumbling  in  his  ears.  It  may  be  that  our 
ideas,  our  truths,  would  not  suffer  greatly  if  we 
could  patiently  endeavour  to  trace  the  community 
of  humane  feeling  that  lies  beneath  the  wide  gulfs 
that  often  separate  us  intellectually  from  each 
other. 

Professor  Ernst  Haeckel  is  one  of  those  com- 
bative figures  of  all  time  who  take  misunder- 
standing as  a  part  of  their  romantic  career.     If  he 


10  INTRODUCTION 

had  shut  himself  within  the  laboratory,  as  some  of 
his  gifted  colleagues  did,  all  the  world  would 
honour  him  to-day.  His  vast  range  of  biological 
knowledge,  almost  without  parallel  in  our  specialist 
days,  fitted  him  for  great  scientific  achievements. 
His  superb  special  contributions  to  biology — his 
studies  of  radiolaria,  sponges,  medusae,  &g. — give 
ample  evidence  of  it.  As  things  are,  he  has.  Pro- 
fessor Hertwig  says,  **  written  his  name  in  letters 
of  light  in  the  history  of  science."  He  holds  four 
gold  medals  for  scientific  research  (Cothenius, 
Swammerdam,  Darwin,  and  Challenger),  four 
doctorates  (Berlin,  Jena,  Edinburgh,  and  Cam- 
bridge), and  about  eighty  diplomas  from  so  many 
universities  and  academic  bodies.  But  he  was 
one  of  those  who  cannot  but  look  out  of  the 
windows  of  the  laboratory.  His  intense  idealism, 
his  sense  of  what  he  felt  to  be  wrong  and  untrue, 
inflamed  by  incessant  travel  and  communion  with 
men,  drove  him  into  the  field  of  battle.  In  the 
din  and  roar  of  a  great  conflict  his  name  has 
passed  on  to  a  million  lips  and  become  the  varied 
war-cry  of  fiercely  contending  parties.  A  hundred 
Haeckels,  grotesque  in  their  unlikeness  to  each 
other,  circulate  in  our  midst  to-day. 

The  present  work  is  a  plain  study  of  the  person- 
ality of  Haeckel  and  the  growth  of  his  ideas.  The 
character  of  Haeckel  was  forged  amid  circum- 
stances that  have  largely  passed  away  from  the 
scientific  world  of  our  time.  The  features,  even, 
of  the  world  he  has  worked  in  of  recent  years  in 
Germany  are   so  different  from  our  own  that  no 


INTKODUCTION  11 

Englishman  can  understand  him  without  sober 
study  of  his  life.  He  has  often  been  called  '^  the 
Darwin  of  Germany."  The  phrase  is  most  mis- 
leading. It  suggests  a  comparison  that  is  bound 
to  end  in  untruth  and  injustice.  In  the  same  year 
that  Haeckel  opened  his  Darwinian  campaign  in 
Germany  he  won  the  prize  for  the  long  jump — a 
record  jump.  It  is  the  note  of  much  in  his 
character.  He  was  no  quiet  recluse,  to  shrink 
from  opposition  and  hard  names,  but  a  lusty, 
healthy,  impetuous,  intrepid  youth,  even  when  his 
hair  had  worn  to  grey.  A  story  is  told  of  how, 
not  many  years  ago,  the  Grand  Duke  of  Weimar 
playfully  rallied  him,  in  the  midst  of  a  brilliant 
company,  on  his  belief  in  evolution.  To  the  horror 
of  the  guests,  he  slapped  the  powerful  noble  on  the 
shoulder,  and  told  him  to  come  to  Jena  and  see 
the  proofs  of  it.  In  his  seventy-first  year  we  find 
him  severely  censuring  his  Emperor — the  emperor 
of  many  fortresses — in  a  public  lecture  at  Berlin. 

How  his  vigour  and  his  resentment  arose  as 
barrier  after  barrier  was  raised  before  him  :  how  his 
scorn  of  compromise  was  engendered  and  fed  :  how 
he  accumulated  mountains  of  knowledge  in  obscure, 
technical  works  before  he  formulated  his  sharp 
didactic  conclusions :  all  this  is  told  in  the  following 
story.  For  good  or  ill  he  has  won  an  influence  in 
this  country,  and  his  story  should  be  read.  It 
is,  in  itself,  one  of  rare  and  varied  interest,  and  it 
is  told  by  one  of  the  most  brilliant  penmen  of 
modern  Germany,  his  former  pupil,  now  a  dis- 
tinguished biologist,  Professor  Wilhelm  Bolsche. 


12  INTRODUCTION 

The  time  seems  to  have  come  in  England  for 
the  publication  of  some  authoritative  picture  of 
the  great  biologist  and  controversialist.  One  work 
of  his  circulates  by  the  hundred  thousand  amongst 
us,  and  has  had  a  deep  and  lasting  influence  on 
the  thoughts  of  large  classes  of  men.  His  in- 
fluence is  hardly  less  in  France  and  Italy,  as  well 
as  in  Germany ;  his  doctrines  have,  in  fact,  been 
translated  into  fifteen  different  tongues.  The 
deep,  sometimes  bitter,  controversy  that  they  have 
engendered  must  have  led  to  a  desire  to  know  more 
of  the  man  and  his  making.  The  attempts  that 
have  been  made  here  and  there  to  ^'construct" 
him  from  his  ideas  and  literary  manner  are,  as  the 
reader  will  see,  very  far  removed  from  the  reality. 
Behind  all  the  strained  inferences  from  doctrines, 
behind  all  the  dishonouring  epithets,  there  is  a 
genial,  warm,  deeply  artistic,  intensely  idealist 
nature,  sung  with  enthusiasm  by  poets  who  have 
known  him.  Once,  in  playful  scientific  mood, 
Haeckel  tried  to  explain  his  own  character  in  his 
familiar  terms  of  heredity  and  environment.  He 
came  of  a  line  of  lawyers,  straight,  orderly,  inexor- 
able men.  He  had  lived  and  worked  in  quiet  Jena, 
in  the  beautiful  valley  of  the  Saale.  But  he  did 
not  speak  of  that  larger  environment — the  field  of 
battle,  stretching  far  away,  beyond  the  calm  Thu- 
ringian  hills,  to  the  ends  of  Europe.  We  must 
place  Haeckel's  ardent  and  high-minded  nature  in 
that  field,  face  to  face  with  his  opponents,  if  we 
would  understand  him. 

For  the  supplementary  chapter  I  have   drawn 


INTRODUCTION  13 

freely  on  another  biographical  sketch  b}^  one  of 
Haeckel's pupils,  Dr.Breitenbach,and  other  sources.' 
For  the  illustrations  I  am  indebted  chiefly  to 
Professor  Haeckel  himself,  and  can  only  offer 
him  in  return  this  grateful  effort  to  lift  his  in- 
spiring and  impressive  personality  above  the  dust 
and  cloud  of  a  great  controversy. 

JOSEPH  McCABE. 


CHAPTER  I 


EAELY    YOUTH 


*'  T  AM  wholly  a  child  of  the  nineteenth  cen- 
A-  tury,  and  with  its  close  I  would  draw  the 
line  under  my  life's  work."  Thus  does  Professor 
Haeckel  speak  of  himself.  There  is  a  note  of 
gentle  resignation  in  the  words,  but  the  time  is 
coming  when  men  will  give  them  a  different 
meaning.  Whatever  greater  achievements  may 
be  wrought  by  a  future  generation  in  the  service 
of  truth  and  human  welfare,  their  work  will  be  but 
a  continuation  of  the  truth  of  our  time,  as  long  as 
humanity  breathes.  On  the  intrepid,  outstanding 
figures  of  the  nineteenth  century  will  shine  a  light 
that  is  peculiarly  theirs,  an  illumination  that  men 
will  dwell  on  for  ever — as  we  look  back,  in 
personal  life,  on  the  young  days  of  love.  It 
was  a  strong  love  that  brought  our  century  to 
birth. 

The   soul   of   humanity  has  for   four   centuries 
been  passing  through  a  grim  crisis. 

Let  us  imagine  ourselves  for  a  moment  before  the 
noble  painting  by  Michael  xlngelo  in  the  Sixtine 


15 


16  HAECKEL 

Chapel  at  Rome.  What  art !  What  utter  reve- 
lation of  the  power  of  man's  mind !  But,  we  ask, 
what  material  did  the  genius  of  humanity  choose 
in  those  days  for  the  manifestation  of  its  giant 
power?  The  last  judgment:  the  Christ  descending 
at  the  blare  of  the  last  trumpet,  to  reward  the 
faithful  and  banish  the  sinner  into  everlasting 
pain :  the  Almighty,  breathing  His  spirit  into 
Adam,  or  mystically  upbuilding  Eve  from  the  rib 
of  the  man.  There  was  no  "  symbolic  "  intention 
in  the  picture ;  the  deepest  feeling  of  hundreds 
— nay,  thousands — of  years  was  embodied  in  it. 
The  artist  merely  gave  an  imperishable  external 
form  to  the  most  treasured  truth  of  his  time. 

Yet,  slowly  and  gradually,  what  a  mighty 
change  has  come  about ! 

Columbus  has  sailed  over  the  blue  seas,  and  a 
new  side  of  the  earth  lies  in  the  violet  haze  of  the 
dawn.  Copernicus  sees  the  ball  of  the  earth  roll 
round  the  sun  through  space,  by  force  of  some 
mysterious  law.  Kepler  dreams  of  the  world- 
harmony  that  will  replace  the  ever-acting  Deity, 
and  discovers  at  length  an  unsuspected  regularity 
in  the  framework  of  the  heavens.  Galileo  turns 
his  new  optic  tube  to  the  stars,  and  at  once  the 
heavens  are  changed,  not  only  for  the  calculating, 
mathematical  mind,  but  even  for  the  eye  of  sense  : 
there  are  jagged  peaks  on  the  moon,  satellites 
circling  about  Jupiter,  a  wilderness  of  stars  lying 
across  the  Milky  Way,  spots  on  the  sun,  rings 
round  Saturn.  Giordano  Bruno  shatters  the 
ancient  crystalline  vault  of  the  firmament ;  every 


EARLY    YOUTH  17 

"  fixed  star "  in  the  Milky  Way  is  to  him  a 
flaming  sun,  the  pulsing  heart  of  a  whole  world, 
in  which,  perchance,  human  hearts  like  ours  throb 
and  leap  on  a  hundred  planets.  The  red,  mur- 
derous flames  of  hate  close  over  Bruno,  but  they 
cannot  dim  the  light  of  the  new  stars.  It  is  in 
the  eye  and  the  brain  of  the  new  men  that  arise, 
and  will  nevermore  fade  from  them. 

The  seventeenth  century,  opening  amid  the  last 
glare  of  the  martyr-fires,  quickens  with  a  vague 
yearning  and  expectation. 

In  the  eighteenth  century  the  old  world  breaks 
up.  From  the  new  stars,  from  the  new  world, 
new  ideas  come.  On  all  sides  is  the  crash  and 
roar  of  conflict.  Dread  flames  break  out  in  the 
social,  moral,  and  aesthetic  life  of  men.  But  the 
century  ends  in  the  birth  of  a  greater  artist  than 
Michael  Angelo. 

Goethe,  on  the  morn  of  the  nineteenth  century, 
paints  a  new  Sixtine  Chapel  in  his  poetry.  But 
he  no  longer  depicts  the  old  ideas.  He  speaks  of 
God-Nature.  To  him  God  is  the  eternal  force 
of  the  All.  His  thoughts  turn  no  longer  on 
Creation  and  the  Last  Judgment.  An  eternal 
evolution  is  the  source  of  his  inspiration.  He 
regards  the  whole  universe  as  a  single,  im- 
measurable revelation  of  spirit.  But  this  spirit  is 
the  rhythmic  outflow  of  infinite  developments.  It 
becomes  Milky  Way  and  sun  and  planet,  blue 
lotus-flowers  and  gay  butterfly.  At  last  it  takes 
the  form  of  man,  and  reads  the  stars  as  an  open 
book.     In  Homer  and  Goethe  it  directs  the  style 

2 


18  HxiECKEL 

and  the  pen ;  in  Michael  Angelo  and  Eaphael  it 
guides  the  pencil  and  the  brush. 

All  this  unfolds  in  Goethe,  as  in  a  vision  with 
yet  half-opened  eyes. 

Then  the  nineteenth  century  begins.  Nature  is 
its  salvation,  the  salvation  of  its  most  practical, 
most  real  need.  It  must  struggle  for  its  existence, 
like  any  other  century,  but  it  has  new  and 
improved  weapons  for  the  struggle.  All  the 
earlier  ages  were  but  poor  blunderers.  The 
lightning  flashed  on  the  naked  savage,  and  he 
fell  on  his  knees  and  prayed,  powerless  as  he  was. 
In  the  eighteenth  century  it  dawned  on  men's 
minds  that  this  might  be  some  force  of  nature. 
The  nineteenth  century  sets  its  foot  on  the  neck 
of  the  demon  of  this  force,  presses  him  into  its 
service,  plays  with  him.  Its  thoughts  and  words 
flash  along  the  lightning  current,  as  if  along  new 
nerve-tracks,  that  begin  to  circle  the  globe.  Man 
becomes  lord  of  the  earth,  from  the  uppermost 
azure  down  into  the  dark,  cold  abysses  of  the 
ocean,  from  the  icy  pole  to  the  burning  tropical 
desert.  And  at  length  man  turns  his  thoughts 
upon  himself. 

Man,  his  arm  resting  on  the  splendid  instru- 
ments of  modern  research,  raises  his  hand  to  his 
brow,  and  turns  philosopher.  He  becomes  at  once 
more  bold  and  more  modest  than  ever. 

What  Goethe  had  seen  in  vision  rises  before 
him  now  in  sharp,  almost  hard  outline  from  his 
own  real  life-work.  He  has  succeeded  in  bringing 
nature  and  its  forces  to  his  feet,  because  it  was 


EARLY    YOUTH  19 

flesh  of  his  flesh  and  blood  of  his  blood.  He  is  its 
child.  A  thousand  tongues  proclaim  the  truth  to 
him,  a  naive,  almost  simple,  revelation  of  reality. 
He  digs  in  the  earth,  and  ancient  bones  and  skulls 
tell  him  vaguely  of  the  past.  Such  once  was  he, 
devoid  of  civilisation,  at  the  verge  of  the  animal 
world.  He  searches  his  frame  through  and 
through  for  further  light.  There  is  the  brain, 
where  the  thoughts  crowd  together.  There  is  the 
cell,  that  builds  up  the  whole  body,  the  cell  that 
so  closely  resembles  the  lowest  of  all  living 
things,  not  yet  distinct  enough  to  be  either 
animal  or  plant.  Here  are  the  forms  that  he 
successively  assumes  in  his  mother's  body,  before 
he  is  born — forms  that  can  hardly  be  distinguished 
from  those  of  the  animal  at  the  same  stage  of 
development.  From  almost  divine  heights  he  has 
sunk  down  to  the  beast,  to  the  primitive  cell — nay, 
deeper  still,  to  the  elementary,  force-impelled 
matter  of  the  universe. 

But  this  early  picture  dissolves  at  once  in  an 
ennobling  and  inspiring  truth.  Nature  becomes 
man.  In  this  he  presses  once  more  to  the  heart 
of  the  most-high.  Nature  is  God.  Goethe  sang 
of  God-Nature.  The  new  God  pulses  in  every 
wave  of  man's  blood.  In  Michael  Angelo's  picture 
God  breathes  his  spirit  into  Adam.  The  new 
iVdam  of  the  nineteenth  century  is  God's  spirit,  in 
body  and  soul,  from  the  very  first,  for  he  is 
Nature.  He  needs  no  more.  When  he  looks  up 
to  the  shining  stars,  he  looks  into  the  eyes  of  God 
and  his  own.     He  has  come  down  from  those  stars 


20  HAECKEL 

like  the  bright  dew  in  which  they  are  now 
mirrored.  He  belongs  to  them,  but  they  also  are 
in  him.  All-Nature :  and  he  is  a  part  of  Nature. 
All-development  :  and  he  is  a  phase  of  the 
development. 

That  is  the  great  philosophical  dream  of  the 
nineteenth-century  worker.  His  hand  is  black 
with  labour,  but  his  spirit  is  full  of  light,  the  light 
of  the  stars  and  of  the  world. 

No  one  can  understand  the  greatness  of  a  man 
like  Ernst  Haeckel  who  has  not  learned  this 
melody.  Nature  is  not  a  flat  surface :  it  is  an 
ocean.  When  Columbus  crossed  the  seas  in  his 
three  frail  barques  long  ago  to  seek  a  new  world  in 
the  distant  haze,  he  little  dreamed  that  the  gray 
waters  buried  other  new  worlds  a  thousand  yards 
beneath  his  keel — worlds  of  the  deep-sea,  into 
which  our  age  has  slowly  dipped  with  its  dredges. 
So  we  in  turn  may  run  our  eye  over  the  blue 
surface  of  nature,  and  think  of  its  mysterious 
gold-lands  and  spice-islands,  without  suspicion  of 
all  that  outspreads  beneath  our  keel.  Yet  that 
glorious  day  on  which  Columbus  found  '^his 
land"  is  an  inspiration  to  us,  his  remote  grand- 
children. The  life  we  are  going  to  examine  will 
bring  before  us  such  a  morning  of  discovery. 
Columbus  went  in  quest  of  Zipangu  (as  he  called 
Japan),  and  he  found  America.  Not  one  of  us, 
however  gifted  -he  be,  can  be  quite  sure  that,  in 
leading  humanity,  he  is  not  sailing  into  another 
such  heroic  error.  Let  us  say  that  at  once  to  all, 
friends  and  opponents.     America  or  Zipangu — let 


EARLY    YOUTH  21 

it   be   so.  Perhaps   any  man   might  have   fomid 

Zipangu,  while    only    the    genius    could    reach 
America. 

•  •               •               •               • 

When  Gustav  Freytag,  who  had  a  most  happy 
quality  for  writing  memoirs,  was  composing  his 
admirable  Pictures  from  the  Fast  of  Gerviany,  he 
sought  in  each  period  some  prominent  man  of 
plain  and  downright  character,  yet  who  had  some- 
thing typical  of  his  age  in  his  sentiments,  as  if 
the  time-spirit  spoke  through  him.  In  this  quest 
he  twice  (in  the  fourth  volume,  for  the  period 
from  the  close  of  the  eighteenth  century  to  the 
Wars  of  Freedom)  lit  upon  earlier  members  of 
Haeckel's  family.  The  first  was  Haeckel's 
grandfather  on  the  mother's  side,  Christoph 
Sethe  ;  the  second  was  his  father,  Councillor 
Haeckel. 

This  simple  fact  shows  the  stuff  of  Haeckel's 
race.  The  older  Sethe  was  an  important  man 
in  his  time.  He  left  to  his  children  manuscript 
memoirs  of  his  eventful  life,  which  have,  un- 
fortunately, been  only  sparsely  used  by  Freytag, 
though  the  whole  deserved  to  be  regarded  as  a 
source  of  history.  The  general  facts  in  relation 
to  him  were  collected  by  Hermann  Hiiffer,  who 
was  not  merely  interested  in  the  jurist  because 
he  was  one  himself,  but  was  brought  into  touch 
with  him  as  a  result  of  his  brilliant  study  of  Heine. 
Sethe's  eldest  son,  Christian,  the  uncle  of  Ernst 
Haeckel,  is  the  well-known  friend  of  Heine's  youth 
to  whom  the  poet  dedicated  the  ^'  Fresco-sonnets  " 


22  HAECKEL 

in  his  Booh  of  Songs  and  wrote  the  finest  of  his 
early  letters.  This  Christian  Sethe  (he  died  on 
May  31,  1857,  being  then  Provincial  Director  of 
Kevenue  at  Stettin),  was  a  lawyer,  like  his  father, 
and  the  father  himself  came  of  a  legal  family. 
Haeckel's  own  father,  moreover,  the  husband  of 
one  of  Christian's  sisters,  was  a  State  Councillor 
at  the  time  of  his  death,  and  his  elder  brother 
was  a  Provincial  Councillor.  Thus  Haeckel's 
genealogical  tree  spreads  into  the  legal  profession 
in  a  curiously  complex  way. 

We  naturally  reflect  for  a  moment  if  we  could 
fancy  Haeckel  himself  as  a  lawyer.  It  is  hardly 
possible.  He  would  at  least  have  been  a  very 
rebellious  member  of  the  profession,  and  have 
been  sadly  lacking  in  respect  for  the  venerable 
traditions  and  powdered  wigs  of  the  court — 
assuming,  of  course  (which  a  mere  layman  has 
no  right  to  question),  that  there  ought  still  to 
be  such  traditions  and  costumes  in  the  profession. 
In  his  vigorous  Biddle  of  the  Universe  he  has, 
from  his  scientific  point  of  view,  brought  strictures 
against  the  legal  profession  that  leave  nothing 
to  be  desired  in  the  way  of  candour,  when  we 
recollect  the  long  tradition  of  his  family.  In  its 
lingering  in  the  rear  of  the  progress  of  the  times 
the  whole  science  of  law  seemed  to  him  to  be  a 
*' riddle  of  the  universe."  The  jurist  is  apt  to  be 
respected  as  an  embodiment  of  our  highest  culture. 
In  reality  that  is  not  the  case.  The  distinctive 
object  of  his  concern,  man  and  his  soul,  is  only 
superficiall}^  studied  in  the  preparation  for  the  law, 


EARLY    YOUTH  23 

and  so  we  still  find  amongst  jurists  the  most 
extraordinary  views  as  to  the  freedom  of  the  will, 
responsibility,  and  so  on.  "  Most  of  our  legal 
students  pay  no  attention  to  anthropology,  psy- 
chology, and  evolution,  the  first  requisites  for 
a  correct  appreciation  of  human  nature.  They 
'  have  no  time '  for  it.  It  is  unfortunately  all 
absorbed  in  a  profound  study  of  beer  and  wine  and 
the  ^  noble  art  *  of  fencing ;  and  the  rest  of  their 
valuable  time  is  taken  up  in  learning  some 
hundreds  of  paragraphs  from  the  books  of  law, 
the  knowledge  of  which  is  supposed  to  qualify  the 
jurist  to  fill  any  position  whatever  in  the  State." 

The  student  of  psychology,  however,  cannot 
fail  to  see  that  the  disposition  that  led  so  many 
members  of  Haeckel's  family  into  the  legal 
profession  was  also  developed  in  himself  to  some 
extent.  There  is  perhaps  no  other  scientist  of 
his  time  with  such  an  imperious  craving  for  clear- 
ness, for  clean  lines  and  systematic  arrangement. 
At  least  in  the  whole  of  the  Darwinian  period 
no  other  has  made  so  great  an  effort  to  convert 
the  scattered  flight  of  phenomena  in  the  realm  of 
life  into  the  even  course  of  so  many  fixed  '*  laws." 
In  many  of  his  writings  this  tendency  to  formulate 
laws  is  so  pronounced  that  the  layman  instinctively 
has  an  impression  of  dogmatism  on  the  part  of 
the  author.  This  has  been  grossly  misunderstood, 
and  made  to  play  an  important  part  in  the  con- 
troversial work  of  his  opponents.  The  truth  is 
that  this  sharp  outlook  and  pronounced  tendency 
to  formulate  clear   and  unambiguous  '*  laws  "  in 


24  HAECKEL 

the  animal  and  plant  worlds  is  a  matter  of  tem- 
perament as  much  as  of  judgment.  It  is  very 
possible  that  we  have  here  an  hereditary  trait, 
an  innate  aversion  for  disorder  and  confusion — for 
a  thoughtless  rushing  ahead  without  clear  ideas 
and  plan.  The  trait  was  the  more  important  and 
helpful  as  a  man  of  Haeckel's  type  was  sure  to 
be  one  of  the  most  active  revolutionaries  in  his 
science,  even  apart  from  Darwinian  ideas.  It 
would  be  difficult  to  find  another  reformer  in  any 
great  province  of  thought  who,  immediately  after 
effecting  a  complete  overthrow  of  the  older  ideas, 
has  hastened  so  quickly  to  build  up  the  new,  to 
devise  a  nomenclature  and  a  classification  down  to 
the  smallest  details,  and  hand  on  at  once  to  his 
successors  a  splendid  order  once  more.  Zoology, 
which  seemed  to  crumble  into  chaos  after  Darwin's 
victory  and  the  collapse  of  the  old  framework, 
came  out  of  Haeckel's  hands,  after  barely  two 
years'  work,  in  the  shape  of  a  new  and  graceful 
Darwinistic  structure — not,  indeed,  perfect  and 
finally  completed,  but  entirely  habitable  for  the 
young  generation.  They  could  add  new  stones 
as  they  thought  fit,  or  pierce  new  windows,  and 
so  on ;  but  at  all  events  the  chaos  was  terminated 
at  a  critical  moment  by  this  iron  man  of  order. 
I  will  only  add,  to  complete  the  picture,  that  one 
of  the  three  doctorates  that  Haeckel  holds  to-day 
is  that  of  law  (an  honorary  degree),  in  addition 
to  his  qualifications  in  philosophy  and  medicine. 
He  now  only  lacks  the  theological  degree,  but  I 
fear  that  he  will  neither  take  the  trouble  to  secure 


EARLY    YOUTH  25 

it  nor  have  it   conferred   on  him  as  an  honorary 
distinction  for  his  merit  in  that  department. 

The  Sethes  and  Haeckels  of  the  earlier  gene- 
ration were  not  merely  zealous  jurists,  but  also 
characteristic  figures  of  Napoleonic  and  post- 
Napoleonic  Prussia.  Christoph  Sethe,  the  patriarch 
of  the  maternal  line,  was  Privy  Councillor  of  the 
Prussian  Government  at  Cleve  at  the  beginning 
of  the  last  decade  of  the  eighteenth  century, 
though  he  was  then  young.  When  the  French 
occupied  the  country  he  accompanied  the  Govern- 
ment to  Miinster,  in  1802,  which  had  become  a 
Prussian  town.  But  the  stalwart  German  was 
pursued  even  there  by  the  detested  Napoleonists. 
He  was  sent  to  Diisseldorf  as  General  Procurator 
in  1808,  and  came  into  dangerous  conflict  with 
the  French  authorities  shortly  before  the  Emperor's 
fall.  The  mobilisation  of  the  troops  for  the  cam- 
paign of  1812  had  led  to  a  disturbance  amongst 
the  workers.  Sethe's  sense  of  patriotism  and 
justice  was  affronted  by  the  arbitrary  proceedings 
of  the  French.  He  was  summoned  to  give  an 
account  at  Paris,  the  chief  object  being  to  retain 
him — the  most  powerful  official  in  the  Ehine 
district  and  not  a  very  safe  man — as  a  hostage 
during  the  crisis.  It  was  at  Paris  that  he  made 
the  finest  phrase  of  his  life.  Roederer,  the 
minister,  tried  to  intimidate  him  with  the  threat 
that  the  Emperor  might  have  a  dangerous  man 
like  him  shot  at  any  moment.  ^'You  will  have 
to  shoot  the  law  first,"  replied  Sethe.  We  are 
often  reminded  of   this  saying   in  the  biography 


26  HAECKEL 

of  Sethe's  grandson.  If  Haeckel  had  been  burned 
at  the  stake  hke  Giordano  Bruno,  he  would  have 
thought  of  nothing  but  the  'Maw" — the  law  of 
truth  and  freedom  that  they  would  burn  with  him. 

Christoph  Sethe  continued  to  play  an  impor- 
tant part  in  the  service  of  Prussia,  to  which,  of 
course,  he  returned,  together  with  the  Rhinelands, 
after  Napoleon's  fall.  He  was  destined  to  live 
through  the  terrible  reaction  under  Frederic 
William  the  Third,  and  the  fiery  outburst  under 
his  successor.  After  the  early  death  of  his  wife 
their  youngest  daughter,  Bertha,  managed  his 
house  and  large  family. 

She  lived  until  her  death  (April  1,  1904)  in 
her  quiet,  unpretentious  home  in  one  of  the  large 
empty  streets  behind  the  Tiergarten  at  Berlin, 
reaching  the  age  of  ninety-two,  but  never  losing 
her  freshness  of  mind  and  memory.  In  my  many 
happy  talks  with  the  aged  lady  the  succeeding 
periods  seemed  to  melt  together.  The  small,  old 
furniture  and  the  ancient,  ever-ticking  clock  made 
me  forget,  in  dreamy  twilight  hours,  that  the 
red  glare  in  the  sky  above  the  houses  beyond,  that 
faintly  lit  up  the  old-time  room,  was  the  reflec- 
tion from  the  twentieth  century  of  the  electric 
flames  that  flashed  on  the  great  modern  city. 
On  the  table  lay  the  latest  part  of  Haeckel's 
(her  nephew)  fine  illustrated  work  for  artistically 
minded  scientists  and  scientifically  minded  artists 
— the  Art-forms  in  Nature,  The  dear  old  lady 
spoke  with  pride  of  her  knowledge  of  the  ''  radio- 
laria,"  the  mysterious  unicellular  ocean-dwellers, 


EARLY    YOUTH  27 

described  in  HaeckePs  splendid  monograph,  the 
flinty  shells  of  which  are  amongst  the  finest  artistic 
treasures  of  nature.  She  called  them  the  "  dear 
radiolaria  "  with  all  the  tenderness  of  the 
emotional  man  of  science  who  had  felt  a  sort  of 
psychic  relation,  a  living  affinity,  to  the  tiny 
microscopic  strangers  he  had  been  the  first  to 
arrange  and  describe  in  their  thousands.  Smiling, 
with  quiet  pride,  she  told  me  how  her  nephew 
visited  her,  when  he  came  to  Berlin ;  how,  with 
the  unassuming  ways  of  this  sound  stock,  he 
chose  to  sleep  in  the  clothes-drying  loft ;  how 
he  invited  his  friends  to  come  and  hear  of  his 
voyages  and  work,  bringing  thirty  of  them  to  share 
a  single  dish  of  herring-salad  in  his  naive  way,  and 
how,  as  they  continued  to  pour  in,  he  made  seats 
for  them  of  boards  and  tubs,  and  fed  them  with  his 
wonderful  genius  for  anecdote  so  that  none  went 
away  fasting.  She  dwelt  with  entire  satisfaction  on 
the  last,  the  '^zoological"  phase,  of  the  Haeckel- 
Sethe  house.  Yet  it  all  blended  softly  with  the 
old  and  the  past  of  nearly  a  century  ago.  Over 
the  patriarchal  furniture  hung  the  oil  painting  of 
Christoph  Sethe,  with  the  large  Koman  nose 
that  runs  through  the  family  down  to  Ernst 
Haeckel  himself,  and  gives  the  chief  feature  to 
his  otherwise  soft  profile.  Under  a  glass  shade, 
in  the  old  fashion  of  our  grandfathers  that  we 
perhaps  do  not  sufficiently  appreciate,  w^as  a  fine 
bust  of  Schleiermacher.  He  was  a  friend  of  the 
Sethes.  Bertha  Sethe  was  confirmed  by  him. 
He  died    four    days    before   Ernst    Haeckel    was 


28  HAECKEL 

born,  on  February  12,  1834.  The  sister  came  from 
the  grave  to  attend  the  mother  of  the  new-born 
child.  A  little  fact  of  that  character  seems 
to  pour  out  a  broad  stream  of  light.  The  religious 
sense  was  strong  in  the  Sethes,  but  it  was  not  of 
the  rigid  conventional  character.  It  came  from 
the  depths  of  human  destinies,  of  individual 
experience.  In  those  depths  it  is  always  found 
associated  with  that  other  fundamental  quality 
of  human  experience  and  inner  life — a  zeal  for 
the  truth.  Schleiermacher,  the  Good,  had  endea- 
voured within  the  limits  of  his  time  (if  not  of  our 
time)  to  erect  a  new  and  firmer  Christendom. 
Darwinism  might  very  well  have  adjusted  itself  to 
this  new  Christendom,  that  needed  no  record  of 
miracles  from  disputed  historical  works  to  support 
it,  but  sought  the  holiest  ideal  prophetically  in  the 
symbolic  conception  and  the  development  of  the 
true,  the  good,  and  the  beautiful.  Had  Schleier- 
macher read  the  Natural  History  of  Creation,  or 
later  theologians  shared  his  temper,  one  wonders 
how  much  exaggeration  and  bitterness  might  have 
been  spared  on  either  side.  But  religion  was  not 
prepared  to  dissociate  itself  from  '^  the  Church," 
and  with  the  Church  there  could  be  no  compromise. 
Thus  one's  thoughts  travelled  from  the  radiolaria  in 
Haeckel's  latest  publication  and  the  old  bust  of 
Schleiermacher,  which  was  protected  by  its  glass 
shade,  in  this  home  of  old-world  piety,  from  the 
wicked  flies  of  the  twentieth  century. 

An  elder  sister  of  Bertha  Sethe  and   daughter 
of  the  old  Christoph  Sethe  had  married  the  much 


EARLY    YOUTH  29 

older  lawyer,  Karl  Haeckel,  in  the  twenties.  The 
first-fruit  of  this  marriage  was  Ernst  HaeckeFs 
elder  brother,  the  Provincial  Councillor  Haeckel 
who  died  a  few  years  ago,  a  high-minded  and 
sensitive  man.  He  remained  throughout  life 
faithful  to  the  strict  traditional  forms  of  religious 
experience,  in  spite  of  all  his  admiration  for  his 
gifted  zoological  brother. 

The  second  and  last  child  did  not  appear  until 
ten  years  later.  Ernst  Haeckel  was  born  on  the 
16th  of  February,  1834,  shortly  after  the  death 
of  Schleiermacher,  as  I  have  explained.  Most  of 
what  I  know  of  his  earliest  years  was  told  me  by 
his  venerable  aunt  Bertha. 

His  father  died  long  ago,  in  1871.  Gustav 
Freytag  has  pointed  out  how  eagerly  he  drank 
in  the  morning  air  of  the  dawning  freedom  before 
1813.  For  many  years  he  was  at  a  later  date 
a  very  close  friend  of  Gneisenau.  He  was  an 
earnest,  conscientious,  upright  man,  wdth  no 
particular  artistic  arabesques  to  his  life,  and  at 
the  same  time  no  errors.  The  victories  of  1870 
lit  up  the  red  sunset  of  his  days.  He  was  one  of 
those  happy  folk  who  thought  that  all  was  accom- 
plished in  the  great  achievements  of  those  days, 
and  had  little  suspicion  of  what  was  still  to  come. 
The  mother  survived  him  for  many  years.  Her 
son's  Indian  Travels  was  dedicated  to  her  on  her 
eighty-fourth  birthday,  November  22,  1882.  The 
dedication  ran :  ' '  Thou  it  was  who  from  early 
childhood  fostered  in  me  a  sense  for  the  infinite 
beauties   of  nature :   thou  hast  ever  w^atched  my 


30  HAECKEL 

changeful  career  with  all  the  ceaseless  care  and 
thought  that  we  compress  in  the  one  phrase — a 
mother's  love." 

Ernst  Haeckel  was  born  at  Potsdam,  but  in  the 
same  year  the  father  was  transferred  to  Merseburg, 
where  the  child  was  brought  up.  It  was  not  his 
destiny  to  be  a  child  of  Berlin.  Saxony  remained 
essentially  his  home  in  many  respects.  We  can 
always  see  in  him  something  of  this  home  that  looks 
down  on  its  children  from  its  great  green  hills.  The 
cold  lines  of  the  streets  of  the  metropolis  and  the 
melancholy  of  the  Brandenburg  pine-forests  cannot 
be  traced  in  him.  In  later  years  Berlin  assumed 
more  and  more  in  his  thoughts  the  shape  of  an 
antipodal  city.  His  works  are  full  of  the  sharpest 
strictures  on  Berlin  science.  It  was  at  an  earlier 
date  the  city  of  Ehrenberg  and  Keichert,  whom 
he  did  not  love ;  later  it  was  associated  with  Du 
Bois-Keymond  and  Virchow,  who  gradually  be- 
came his  bitterest  opponents.  But  he  detested 
it  generally  as  the  home  of  Privy  Councillors, 
of  science  in  the  Procrustean  bed  of  official 
supervision.  When  he  compared  what  he  himself 
had  done  at  Jena  with  the  slenderest  possible 
appliances,  and  what,  in  his  judgment,  had  been 
done  by  the  heads  of  the  Berlin  schools  in  their 
princely  institutes,  he  would  humorously — though 
it  has  been  taken  very  seriously — lay  down  the 
"  natural  law  "  that  the  magnitude  of  the  scientific 
achievement  is  in  inverse  proportion  to  the  size 
of  the  scientific  institute.  The  official  people  at 
Berlin   did  not   fail   to   make   a   biting  retort   to 


EARLY    YOUTH  31 

these  Kadical  strictures — that  in  1881,  when  he 
wanted  to  go  to  Ceylon,  he  was  formally  refused 
assistance  by  the  Berlin  Academy  from  the  travel- 
ling-fee (then  at  liberty)  attached  to  the  Humboldt 
foundation.  He  made  the  journey  without  their 
assistance,  and  had  the  splendid  revenge  of  giving 
us,  in  the  description  of  this  very  voyage,  the  most 
brilliant  account  of  the  tropics  that  has  appeared 
in  Germany  since  the  time  of  Humboldt.  It  was 
a  finer  contribution  to  the  general  ideal  of  the 
Humboldt  foundation  than  the  timid  payment  of 
a  hundred  pounds  could  have  secured.  However, 
we  are  anticipating.  Before  that  time  he  was  to 
spend  a  short  but  happy  period  at  Berlin  in  the 
fifties,  in  the  best  days  of  his  youth — a  Berlin  of 
a  different  scientific  character  from  the  present 
city,  being  at  once  less  pretentious  and  more  pro- 
found, whichever  the  reader  chooses  to  dwell  on. 

Certain  traits  could  be  recognised  unmistakably 
in  the  boy.  He  had  a  great  love  of  nature,  of 
light,  colour,  and  beauty,  of  flowers  and  trees  and 
butterflies,  of  the  sun  and  the  blue  heavens. 
There  was  also  a  strong  sense  of  independence  and 
individuality.  This  did  not  imply  that  he  was 
lacking  in  gentler  feeling.  It  is  said  that  he  would 
do  anything  that  he  was  asked  but  nothing  that 
it  was  sought  to  compel  him  to  do.  The  little  fair, 
blue-eyed  lad  would  sit  quietly  if  they  gave  him  a 
daisy  to  pull  to  pieces.  First  he  would,  as  if  he 
were  a  student  analysing  it,  detach  the  white  leaves 
from  the  central  yellow  ground.  Then  he  would 
carefully  replace  them,  piece  by  piece,  round  the 


32  HAECKEL 

yellow  centre,  clap  his  little  hands  and  cry  out, 
'^  Now  it's  all  right  again."  It  is  a  very  pretty 
trait  that  tradition  has  preserved.  In  the  play  of 
the  child  we  seem  to  see  the  chief  lines  of  the 
man's  character  like  two  branches  of  a  tree ;  the 
analytic  work  of  the  scientist  and  the  recon- 
structive tendency  of  the  artist  who  restores  the 
dissected  world  to  harmony. 

His  excellent  training  in  those  early  years 
fostered  his  feeling  for  nature  and  his  sense  of 
independence  with  wise  adaptation  to  the  personal 
character  of  the  boy.  The  mother  gladly  culti- 
vated his  love  of  nature.  On  the  deeper  develop- 
ment of  his  character  a  decisive  influence  was 
exercised,  with  every  regard  for  freedom,  by  a 
friend  of  the  family,  the  physician  Basedow.  His 
ideal  was  education  without  compulsion,  by  means 
of  a  sort  of  constant  artificial  selection  and  culti- 
vation of  the  good  that  grew  up  spontaneously  in 
the  soul  of  the  child.  The  father,  a  great  worker, 
was  content  to  give  a  word  of  praise  occasionally ; 
to  urge  him  to  go  to  the  root  of  things  always,  and 
never  to  coquet  idly  with  his  own  soul.  If  the 
young  dreamer  stood  at  the  window  and  looked  up 
at  the  clouds,  his  father  would  pat  him  on  the 
shoulder  and  say,  *' Every  minute  has  its  value 
in  this  world.  Play  or  work — but  do  something." 
It  was,  in  a  sense,  the  voice  of  the  restless  nine- 
teenth century  itself  that  spoke.  The  whole  life 
of  the  youth  and  the  man  was  to  be  an  eternal 
proof  that  he  had  heard  the  message.  He  has 
pressed  unwearyingly  forward,  as  few  other  men 


EARLY    YOUTH  33 

have  done.  There  was  ever  something  in  him  of 
the  mountaineer,  hurrying  on  and  watching  every 
hour  that  he  may  reach  the  summit.  The  day 
of  rest  may  come  afterwards,  down  below  in  the 
valley.  In  truth,  it  never  came.  It  is  well  known 
that  the  man  wrote  some  of  his  most  difficult,  most 
widely  read,  and  most  controverted  works  subse- 
quently in  a  few  months,  encroaching  upon  his 
night's  rest  until  his  health  was  endangered.  In 
a  remote  Cingalese  village  in  Ceylon,  where  the 
enervating  tropical  climate  forces  even  the  strongest 
to  indulge  in  the  afternoon  siesta,  he  tells  himself 
that,  in  view  of  the  great  expense  of  the  journey, 
each  day  is  worth  a  five-pound  note.  He  refuses 
to  sleep  long  hours  or  take  the  siesta,  rises  at  five 
in  the  morning,  and  uses  the  hottest  hours  of  the 
day,  from  twelve  to  four,  for  "anatomical  and 
microscopic  work,  observing  and  drawing,  and  for 
packing  up  the  material  collected."  He  met  to 
the  full  the  claim  of  the  nineteenth  century,  for 
all  the  inner  poetic  tendency  of  his  character. 
Such  a  character  he  must  have  had  to  become 
a  philosopher,  as  he  has  done;  but  it  lay,  as  it  were, 
in  deeper  recesses  of  his  being.  To  the  eye  of  the 
observer  he  seemed  to  be  ever  rushing  on  with 
a  watch  in  his  hand  until  old  age.  When  we  think 
of  the  enormous  number  of  problems  and  the  vast 
range  of  interests  that  brought  him  into  the  front 
rank  in  the  nineteenth  century,  we  may  say  that 
he  advanced  at  a  pace  that  would  have  given 
concern  to  the  aged  adviser  of  his  youth  in  his 
small  world. 

3 


34  HAECKEL 

In  the  long  run  we  may  say  of  all  education  as 
of  the  physician  in  the  old  saying,  '^  The  best  doctor 
is  the  one  we  don't  need,  because  we  are  not 
ill."  Haeckel  was  sent  to  the  school  at  Merseburg. 
This  instruction  came  to  a  close  in  his  eighteenth 
year.  He  thought  of  some  of  his  old  teachers 
with  affection  forty  years  afterwards.  On  the 
whole  his  later  opinion  of  the  usual  schooling  was  as 
severe  as  that  of  many  of  his  contemporaries.  In 
his  General  Morphology  (1866),  his  most  profound 
work,  he  speaks  of  the  ^'very  defective,  perverse, 
and  often  really  mischievous  instruction,  by  which 
we  are  filled  with  absurd  errors,  instead  of  natural 
truths,  in  our  most  impressionable  years."  Sixteen 
years  afterwards  (in  a  speech  delivered  at  Eisenach) 
he  hopes  that  the  triumphant  science  of  evolution 
"  will  put  an  end  to  one  of  the  greatest  evils  in  our 
present  system  of  education — that  overloading  of 
the  memory  with  dead  material  that  destroys  the 
finest  powers,  and  prevents  the  normal  develop- 
ment of  either  mind  or  body."  "  This  overload- 
ing," he  says,  '^is  due  to  the  old  and  ineradicable 
error  that  the  excellence  of  education  is  to  be 
judged  by  the  quantity  of  positive  facts  committed 
to  memory,  instead  of  by  the  quality  of  the  real 
knowledge  imparted.  Hence  it  is  especially  advis- 
able to  make  a  more  careful  selection  of  the  matter 
of  instruction  both  in  the  higher  and  the  elemen- 
tary schools,  and  not  to  give  precedence  to  the 
faculties  that  burden  the  memory  with  masses  of 
dead  facts,  but  to  those  that  buildup  the  judgment 
with  the  living  play  of  the  idea  of  evolution.     Let 


EARLY    YOUTH  35 

our  tortured  children  learn  only  half  what  they  do, 
but  learn  it  better,  and  the  next  generation  will  be 
twice  as  sound  as  the  present  one  in  body  and  soul. 
The  reform  of  education,  which,  we  trust,  will  be 
brought  about  by  introducing  the  idea  of  evolution, 
must  apply  to  the  mathematical  and  scientific,  as 
well  as  the  philological  and  historical  sections, 
because  there  is  the  same  fault  in  them  all,  that 
far  too  much  material  is  injected,  and  far  too  little 
attention  is  paid  to  its  digestion."  Seventeen 
years  later  again,  in  the  Biddle  of  the  Universe^  the 
elementary  schools  are  severely  handled.  Science 
is  still  the  Cinderella  of  the  code.  Our  teachers 
regard  it  as  their  chief  duty  to  impart  ^*  the  dead 
knowledge  that  has  come  down  from  the  schools  of 
the  Middle  Ages.  They  give  the  first  place  to  their 
grammatical  gymnastics,  and  waste  time  in  im- 
parting a  ^  thorough  knowledge '  of  the  classical 
tongues  and  foreign  history.''  There  is  no  question 
of  cosmology,  anthropology,  or  biology ;  instead  of 
these  *^  the  memory  is  loaded  with  a  mass  of  philo- 
logical and  historical  facts  that  are  quite  useless 
either  from  the  theoretical  or  the  practical  point 
of  view."  In  these  expressions,  which  recur  con- 
stantly throughout  the  whole  of  a  thoughtful  life, 
we  can  clearly  see  a  very  intense  general  experience 
of  youth,  and  this  is  a  more  valuable  document 
than  any  individualised  complaint  against  this  or 
that  bad  teacher  in  particular. 

However,  Haeckel  (who,  in  point  of  fact,  took 
everything  seriously  and  would  have  all  in  the 
clearest  order)  made  a  very  thorough  appropriation 


36  HAECKEL 

of  his  Latin  and  Greek.  When  the  new  Dar- 
winian zoology  and  botany  needed  several  hundred 
new  Latin-Greek  technical  terms  in  after-years,  he 
showed  himself  to  be  an  inventor  of  the  first  rank 
in  this  department.  No  other  scientist  has  made 
anything  like  the  same  adroit  use  of  the  classic 
vocabulary  for  the  purposes  of  the  new  system  and 
created  a  new  terminology  for  the  entirely  new 
science.  His  creations  were  certainly  ingenious, 
and  not  without  grace  at  times  ;  in  other  cases,  as 
was  almost  inevitable,  they  were  less  pleasing. 
And  to  this  we  must  add  thousands  of  names  of 
new  species  which  he  had  to  coin,  as  the  discoverer 
of  radiolaria,  medusae,  sponges,  &c.  In  the  radio- 
laria  alone  he  has  formed  and  published  the  names 
of  more  than  3,500  new  species.  I  fancy  that  even 
the  oldest  pastor  of  the  most  fertile  congregation 
has  never  conducted  so  many  christenings.  In 
each  case  it  was  necessary  to  impose  two  names, 
the  generic  and  specific.  We  may  well  expect  to 
find  a  few  that  will  not  last,  but  the  reader  is 
amazed  at  the  philological  creative  power  of  this 
busy  godfather  and  the  inexhaustibility  of  his 
vocabulary;  they  show  far  more  than  the  usual 
training  in  humanities. 

His  real  predilection  was  pronounced  enough  in 
those  early  years.  It  was  what  the  classical  peda- 
gogue would  regard  as  child's  play  and  waste  of  time 
— zoology  and  botany.  A  large  double  window  in 
his  parents'  house  was  fitted  up  as  a  conservatory, 
and  plants  were  gathered  very  zealously.  His  love 
of  botany  was  so  great  that  any  one  would  have 


EARLY    YOUTH  37 

pronounced  him  a  botanist  in  the  making.  But 
fate  determined  that  he  was  to  be  a  zoologist.  In 
his  eleventh  year  the  boy,  while  paying  a  visit  to 
his  uncle  Bleek  (a  professor  of  theology !)  at  Bonn, 
spent  a  whole  day  searching  the  remotest  corners 
of  the  Siebengebirg  for  the  Erica  cinerea^  which  he 
had  heard  could  not  be  found  in  any  other  part  of 
Germany.  At  the  Merseburg  school  he  had  two 
excellent  teachers,  Gandtner  and  Karl  Gude,  who 
fostered  his  inclination,  and  changed  it  from  a 
mere  collector's  eagerness  into  the  finer  enjoyment 
of  the  scientific  mind.  The  young  student  wrote 
a  contribution  to  Garcke's  Flora  Hallensis.  The 
professional  decision  gives  many  a  troubled  hour. 

It  is  significant  to  find  that  as  the  novice  tended 
his  herbarium  it  dawned  on  him  that  there  was  a 
weak  point  somewhere  in  the  rigid  classification 
given  in  the  manuals  of  botany.  The  books  said 
that  there  were  so  many  fixed  species,  each  invari- 
ably recognisable  by  certain  characters.  But  when 
the  youth  tried  to  diagnose  his  plant-treasures  in 
practice  by  these  rules,  there  seemed  to  be  always 
a  few  contraband  species  smuggled  in,  like  the 
spectres  in  the  Wahlpurgis  night  to  which  the  sage 
vainly  expostulates,  '^  Begone  :  we  have  explained 
you  away."  Often  the  individual  specimens  would 
not  agree  with  the  lore  of  the  books.  There  were 
discrepancies  ;  sometimes  they  cut  across  one  type, 
sometimes  another,  and  at  times  they  shamelessly 
stretched  across  the  gap  between  one  rubric  and 
another.  What  did  it  mean  ?  Were  there  really 
no  fixed  species?     Was  '*  species  "  only  an  idea, 


38  HAECKEL 

and  was  the  reality  of  the  plant-world  in  a  state  of 
flux  like  the  sea  ?  Teachers  and  books  insisted 
that  the  *^  species  "  is,  in  its  absolute  nature,  the 
basis  of  all  botanical  science,  the  great  and  sacred 
foundation  that  the  Moses  of  botany  and  zoology, 
Linne,  had  laid  down  for  ever.  How  could  it 
be  so  ? 

The  mature  worker  would  look  back  on  this 
dilemma  of  his  youth  with  a  smile  of  satisfaction 
thirty  years  afterwards.  He  would  know  then 
what  sort  of  a  nut  it  was  that  he  was  trying  to 
crack  in  his  early  speculations.  It  was  nothing 
less  than  the  magnificent  problem  that  presented 
itself  to  Darwin,  the  crucial  question  of  the  fixity 
or  variability  of  species.  *^  The  problem  of  the 
constancy  or  transmutation  of  species,"  he  wrote, 
'*  arrested  me  with  a  lively  interest  when,  twenty 
years  ago,  as  a  boy  of  twelve  years,  I  made  a 
resolute  but  fruitless  effort  to  determine  and  dis- 
tinguish the  '  good  and  bad  species  '  of  black- 
berries, willows,  roses,  and  thistles.  I  look  back 
now  with  fond  satisfaction  on  the  concern  and 
painful  scepticism  that  stirred  my  youthful  spirits 
as  I  wavered  and  hesitated  (in  the  manner  of  most 
'  good  classifiers,'  as  we  called  them)  whether  to 
admit  only  *  good '  specimens  into  my  herbarium 
and  reject  the  *  bad,'  or  to  embrace  the  latter  and 
form  a  complete  chain  of  transitional  forms  be- 
tween the  *  good  species '  that  would  make  an  end 
of  all  their  *  goodness.'  I  got  out  of  the  difficulty 
at  the  time  by  a  compromise  that  I  can  recommend 
to  all  classifiers.     I  made  two  collections.     One, 


EARLY    YOUTH  39 

arranged  on  official  lines,  offered  to  the  sympatlietic 
observer  all  the  species,  in    '  typical '  specimens, 
as  radically  distinct  forms,  each  decked  with  its 
pretty  label ;    the  other  was  a  private  collection, 
only  shown  to  one  trusted  friend,  and  contained 
only  the   rejected  kinds  that   Goethe   so   happily 
called  ^  the  characterless  or  disorderly  races,  which 
we  hardly  dare  ascribe  to  a  species,  as  they  lose 
themselves  in  infinite   varieties,'    such   as   rubus, 
salix,  verbascum,  hieracium,  rosa,  cirsium,  &c.     In 
this  a  large  number  of  specimens,  arranged  in  a 
long  series,  illustrated  the  direct  transition  from 
one    good    species   to    another.     They    were    the 
officially  forbidden  fruit  of  knowledge  in  which  I 
took  a  secret  boyish  delight  in  my  leisure  hours." 

These  little  scruples,  however,  did  not  interfere 
with  what  he  felt  to  be  the  chief  interest  of  botany. 
The  collecting  of  plants  harmonises  well  with  a 
general  love  of  nature  and  a  passion  for  wandering 
over  hill  and  valley.  Long  walks  had  already 
become  a  feature  of  his  life.  The  scientific  interest 
made  it  superfluous  to  have  a  companion.  Botany 
went  with  him  everywhere  as  his  lady-love,  and 
remained  ever  faithful  to  him.  *^I  have  preferred 
to  travel  alone  most  of  my  life,"  he  used  to  say  to 
me;  ''I  never  feel  ennui  when  I  am  alone.  My 
love  of  and  interest  in  nature  are  much  better  enter- 
tainment than  conversation."  One  of  the  features 
in  this  interest  at  all  times,  even  in  later  years, 
was  botanical  research.  The  material  for  it  is 
found  everywhere.  Darwin,  a  great  traveller  with 
an  unusually  strong  appreciation  of  good  scenery, 


40  HAECKEL 

has  said  that  the  traveller  who  would  combine  the 
pursuit  of  knowledge  with  aesthetic  satisfaction 
must  be  above  all  a  botanist  (in  the  closing  retro- 
spect of  his  Naturalist's  Voyage  Bound  the  World, 
one  of  the  finest  passages  in  the  work).  Whenever 
Haeckel  spoke  in  later  years  of  his  adopted  Jena, 
he  never  failed  to  explain,  amongst  the  other  excel- 
lent qualities  of  the  little  university  town,  that  so 
many  fine  orchids  grew  in  its  woods.  When  he 
left  Jena  to  make  the  long  voyage  to  Ceylon,  his 
last  look  was  at  the  drops  of  dew  that  sparkled  like 
pearls  *'  in  the  dark  blue  calices  of  the  gentians,  with 
their  tender  lashes,  that  so  richly  decked  the  grass- 
covered  sides  of  the  railway  cutting."  The  Letters 
from  India,  that  described  his  voyage,  owes  a  good 
deal  of  its  peculiar  charm  to  his  skill  in  botanical 
description.  I  know  no  other  work  that  approaches 
it  in  conveying  so  effective  an  idea  of  the  luxuriant 
vegetation  of  the  tropics. 

In  those  early  years  there  was  one  particular 
point  of  close  union  between  botany  and  the  sense 
of  beauty.  It  was  only  two  years  before  Haeckel's 
birth  that  Goethe,  the  man  who  had  put  into 
inimitable  verse  new  and  pregnant  truths  of 
botany,  passed  to  his  rest  at  W^eimar. 

It  is  no  longer  a  special  distinction  of  any 
prominent  personality  of  the  nineteenth  century  to 
have  been  influenced  by  Goethe.  It  is  a  kind  of 
natural  necessity  from  which  one  cannot  escape. 
All  that  is  great  in  the  century  can  be  traced 
back  to  Goethe.  He  flows  beneath  it,  like  a  dark 
stream  through  the  bowels  of  a  mountain.     Here 


EARLY    YOUTH  41 

and  there  the  flanks  open  and  the  stream  beconies 
visible  ;  not  a  restless  bubbling  spring,  but  a  broad 
mirror.  There  is,  however,  a  closer  following  of 
Goethe.  There  are  a  few  strong  spirits  that  have 
been  consciously  inspired  by  him  from  the  first 
in  all  their  thoughts  ;  have  throughout  life  felt 
themselves  to  be  the  apostles  of  the  ^'gospel  of 
Goethe  "  ;  and  in  every  new  creation  of  their  own 
have  held  that  they  did  but  reflect  or  expand 
his  ideas,  did  but  carry  on  his  principles  to  these 
further  conclusions.  Haeckel  is,  in  his  whole 
work,  one  of  this  smaller  band ;  his  whole  person- 
ality is,  in  fact,  one  of  its  most  conspicuous 
manifestations  in  the  second  half  of  the  century. 

In  Goethe  we  find  the  basic  ideas  of  his  philo- 
sophy. Goethe  took  from  him  his  God,  and  gave 
him  a  new  one  :  took  from  him  the  external, 
transcendental  God  of  the  Churches,  and  gave 
him  the  God  that  is  in  all  things,  in  the  eternal 
development  of  the  world,  in  body  and  soul  alike, 
the  God  that  embraces  all  reality  and  being, 
beside  whom  there  is  no  distinct  '^  world,"  no 
distinct  "  sinful  man,"  no  special  beginning  or 
end  of  things.  When  Haeckel  found  himself,  at 
the  highest  point  of  his  own  path,  by  the  side  of 
Darwin,  he  was  the  first  to  see  and  to  insist  that 
Darwin  was  but  a  stage  in  the  logical  development 
of  Goethe's  ideas. 

Fate  decided  that  Haeckel  should  be  even 
externally  in  some  sense  an  heir  of  the  Goethe 
epoch.  Jena,  the  university  that  Goethe  had 
regarded  with  such  afiection,  and  at  which  Schiller 


42  HAECKEL 

had  toiled  with  his  heart's  blood  in  **  sad,  splendid 
years,"  owes  its  fame  in  the  last  third  of  the 
century  to  Haeckel.  It  is  not  an  excess  of 
adulation,  but  a  simple  truth,  to  say  that  among 
the  general  public  and  abroad  the  reputation  of 
Jena  passes  directly  from  Goethe,  Schiller,  and 
Fichte  to  Haeckel.  His  name  stands  for  an  epoch 
in  the  life  of  Jena,  like  theirs ;  all  that  lies 
between  is  forgotten  and  unknown.  In  the 
district  itself  it  is  as  if  the  old  epochs  and  the 
new  came  into  direct  touch. 

I  shall  never  forget  the  hour  when  this  thought 
came  upon  me  in  all  its  force.  It  was  on  a 
snowless  December  day,  when  the  dying  fire  of 
autumn  still  lingered  on  the  trees  and  bushes 
where  the  blackbirds  sang  in  front  of  the  obser- 
vatory. The  table  and  seat  of  sandstone  stood 
out  bleakly.  A  tablet  indicated,  in  phrases  of 
Goethe's,  that  Schiller  had  dwelt  there.  It  was 
there  that  the  Wallenstein  was  born.  There  the 
two  often  sat  in  conversation — the  conversation  of 
two  of  the  greatest  minds  of  the  time,  each  in  his 
way  a  master  spirit.  To-day  the  little  dome  of 
the  observatory  looks  down  on  the  spot ;  it  is  not 
a  luxurious  building,  but  it  is  a  stage  in  the 
onward  journey,  a  symbol  of  the  nineteenth 
century  as  it  leaps  into  the  twentieth.  A  little 
farther  ofi  rises  the  modern  structure  of  the 
Zoological  Institute.  In  Goethe's  day  no  one 
dreamed  that  such  a  building  would  ever  be  seen. 
It  was  opened  by  Haeckel  in  1884.  The  zoo- 
logical  collection   it   houses   was  chiefly   brought 


^^^^H 

^^^^E 

y'^RBjv  i^^Sj^^^^^ 

^H 

^^^1 

^Hji 

1^1 

HB 

^T                     '^    _i£^^^^^^^^^^l 

H^H 

\  ^nlP^^^H^r' -f^^^^H 

-l^li^rl^V  ''^^^^^^1 

^^^^^^^^^^^K      ''■'^'^1 

ji'^^af  i^^jijMiW 

^  jSiPI*K^^> 

^.^JbI^IIb 

"''^r        •   ■■  ^w  ~t^        mMp"        '.^hK^Lc^I 

HBBJI^^^H 

^^li^^H 

t  ^^jl^^^^k  ___^^^^^K^^^Mr  ^^ 

i^B             '^-^F^^^^^^^^^^^H 

■t^K"t^ 

^^K.    1 

^^K    ^xi  Isria^'-     ^^^uKm 

^^^^^ 

a 


EARLY    YOUTH  43 

together  under  his  direction.     Amongst  its  trea- 
sures are,  besides  Haeckel's  corals  and   the   like, 
the  outcome  of  the  travels  of  Semon  and  Kiiken- 
thal  in  Australia  and  New  Guinea — lands  whose 
very  outline   could  barely  be  traced  in  the  mist 
when  Schiller  was  a  professor  at  Jena.     At  the 
entrance  there  are  two  stuffed  orangs,  our  distant 
cousins.     One  wall  of  the  lecture-hall  is  covered 
with  huge  charts  depicting  the  genealogical  tree  of 
life,  as  it  is  drawn  up  by  Haeckel.     With  what 
eyes   Schiller  would  have   devoured  them !     Yet 
classic   traits   are  not  wanting.     From  Haeckel's 
fine  study  in  the  Institute   the  eye  falls  on  the 
Hausberg,  ^*  the  mountain-top  from  which  the  red 
rays  stream."     It  is  the  room  in  which  the  deep- 
sea  radiolaria  of  the  Challenger  Expedition  were 
studied,  a   zoological  campaign  in  depths  of  the 
ocean  that  were  stranger  to   Schiller's  days  than 
the  surface  of   the  moon  is  to  us.     Behind  this 
Goethe-Schiller  seat  at  the  observatory  there  is  a 
natural  depression  full  of  willows  that  reminds  us 
of  the  time  when  all  was  country  here.     But  just 
beyond  it   is   a  modern   street — '^  Ernst   Haeckel 
Street,"  as  it  was  named,  in  honour  of  him,  on  the 
occasion  of  his  sixtieth  birthday.     Close  to  it  is 
the  villa  where  he  has  lived  for  many  years  with 
his  devoted  family,  full  of  wonderful  reminiscences 
(oil-paintings    and   water-colours    from    his    own 
hand)  of  his  many  travels.     In   Schiller's  day  a 
voyage  to  Ceylon  would  have  been  a  life's  work. 
To-day  it  is  an  episode  in  an  infinitely  richer  and 
broader  life.     On  the  stone  seat  now  we  see  the 


44  HAECKEL 

proud  and  handsome  figure  of  the  man  himself, 
recalling  pleasantly  the  masters  who  have  stood 
here  before  him,  the  wide  hat  covering  the  white 
hair  that  is  belied  by  the  rosy  cheeks ;  a  straight 
and  strong  figure,  yet  revealing  in  the  finer  lines 
of  the  face  the  sensitive,  aesthetic  temper  that 
does  not  look  on  scientific  investigation  as  a  brutal 
power  of  the  dissecting  knife,  but  remembers  he  is 
the  heir  of  Goethe,  even  in  the  Zoological  Institute 
yonder.  Over  my  mind  came  the  feeling  of  a 
strange  rebirth  of  things.  I  felt  that  life  is  an 
eternally  new  and  mystic  resurrection,  immeasur- 
ably more  wonderful  and  profound  than  all  the 
crude  ideas  of  resurrection  that  have  yet  prevailed. 
A  mind  such  as  we  love  to  picture  to  ourselves  in 
our  ideal  of  the  future  historian  must  seek  the 
eternal  and  constant  features  in  all  change,  even 
in  two  epochs  that  are  so  distinct  and  in  the  men 
who  have  lived  in  them.  It  is  our  incorrigible 
schoolmaster  disposition  that  divides  things.  In 
the  real  world  there  must  be  one  straight  line  of 
development.  To-day  the  highest  is  sought  in  the 
melody  of  immortal  verse  :  to-morrow  a  Zoological 
Institute  rises  on  the  spot  where  the  poet  had 
stood. 

It  is  said  that  the  boy  did  not  come  under  the 
influence  of  Goethe  without  some  dijfficulty.  His 
mother  did  not  like  Goethe ;  she  preferred  Schiller. 
Goethe  was  too  great  for  every  true  soul  to  follow 
him  in  his  arduous  path.  Weimar  itself  had  more 
than  once  been  disposed  to  desert  him.  How 
much  more  the  general  public  in  its  conventional 


EARLY    YOUTH  45 

fetters  !  How  many  fell  away  from  him  when  he 
published  the  Boman  Elegies,  and  again  when 
he  brought  out  the  Elective  Affinities.  In 
Haeckel's  youth  people  remembered  Borne's  narrow 
and  hostile  strictures.  Goethe  began  to  penetrate 
into  the  German  family  as  a  classic  in  spite  of  the 
general  feeling.  But  the  German  family  was  still 
far  below  him.  He  had  gradually  to  lift  it  up 
from  its  Philistine  level.  At  times  it  rebelled 
against  him,  as  every  stubborn  level  does  against 
a  peak.  It  was  his  aunt  Bertha  that  first  put 
Goethe's  works  into  the  boy's  hands.  He  received 
them  as  a  delightful  piece  of  moral  contraband. 

Gottfried  Keller  has  finely  described,  about  the 
same  period,  in  his  Green  Henri/,  the  effect  of  such 
a  revelation  on  a  sensitive  young  man.  A  book- 
seller brings  to  the  house  the  whole  of  Goethe's 
works,  fifty  small  volumes  with  red  covers  and 
gilded  titles.  The  young  Swiss  Heinrich,  Keller's 
picture  of  himself,  reads  the  volumes  unceasingly 
for  thirty  days,  when  they  are  taken  away  because 
his  mother  cannot  pay  for  them.  But  the  thirty 
days  have  been  a  dream  to  the  boy.  He  seems  to 
see  new  and  more  brilliant  stars  in  the  heavens  as 
he  looks  up.  When  the  books  are  removed,  it  is 
as  if  a  choir  of  bright  angels  have  left  the  room. 
'^  I  went  out  into  the  open  air.  The  old  town  on  ,^ 
the  hill,  the  rocks  and  woods  and  river  and  sea  "  ♦ 
and  the  lines  of  the  mountains  lay  in  the  gentle 
light  of  the  March  sun,  and  as  my  eye  fell  on 
them  I  felt  a  pure  and  lasting  joy  that  I  had  never 
known  before.     It  was  a  generous  love  of  all  that 


46  HAECKEL 

lives,  a  love  that  respects  the  right  and  realises 
the  import  of  each  thing,  and  feels  the  connected- 
ness and  depth  of  the  world.  This  love  is  higher 
than  the  artificial  affection  of  the  individual  with 
selfish  aim  that  ever  leads  to  pettiness  and 
caprice  ;  it  is  higher  even  than  the  enjoyment  and 
detachment  that  come  of  special  and  romantic 
affections ;  it  alone  can  give  us  an  unchanging 
and  lasting  glow.  Everything  now  came  before 
me  in  new  and  beautiful  and  remarkable  forms. 
I  began  to  see  and  to  love,  not  only  the  outer 
form,  but  the  inner  content,  the  nature,  and  the 
history  of  things."  The  poet  compresses  his 
experience  into  one  episode.  In  real  life  it  comes 
slowly,  step  by  step.  In  fine,  a  third  element  was 
born  in  the  young  botanist  and  lover  of  beauty — 
Goethe's  view  of  life  behind  all  else :  that  which 
Goethe  himself  called  ^'objective."  The  mystic 
might  call  it  a  return  to  God :  but  it  was  Goethe's 
God. 

Three  other  books  influenced  Haeckel  in  his 
school-days,  besides  the  works  of  Goethe.  The 
first  was  Humboldt's  Aspects  of  Nature.  This  is 
another  work  that  has  had  an  effect  on  all  the 
sensitive  spirits  of  the  nineteenth  century.  It  is 
most  unjustly  depreciated  by  the  young,  blasS 
generation  of  our  time,  which  dislikes  the  older 
style.  In  the  first  two  volumes  of  the  Cosmos  we 
see  the  play  of  a  great  mind  wherever  we  look 
for  it. 

Then  came  Darwin's  Naturalist's  Voyage  round 
the    World.     The   ardent   youth   had    as    yet   on 


EARLY    YOUTH  47 

suspicion  what  the  name  would  one  day  mean  to 
him.  Darwin  was  then  regarded  as  a  completed 
work  on  which  final  judgment  had  been  rendered. 
He  was  appreciated  as  a  traveller,  a  student  of  the 
geology  of  South  America,  and  especially  as  the 
gifted  investigator  of  the  wonderful  coral  reefs  of 
the  Indian  Ocean.  His  name  stood  thus  in  all  the 
manuals,  close  even  to  that  of  Humboldt.  Pro- 
bably the  young  reader  thought  he  had  died  long 
before.  At  all  events,  no  one  had  a  presentiment 
that  this  quiet  naturalist  and  student  of  corals  was 
about  to  light  a  torch  that  would  flame  over  the 
world.  The  chief  advantage  that  Haeckel  drew 
from  the  two  works  was  an  ardent  desire  to  see  the 
tropics,  with  their  virgin  forests  and  blue  coral 
seas.  It  has  come  to  so  many  after  reading  these 
works,  and  persisted  in  their  lives  as  the  vivid 
image  of  a  dream,  like  that  which  drove  Goethe  to 
Italy — the  dream  of  a  home  of  the  soul  that  must 
one  day  be  sought. 

The  third  book  was  Schleiden's  The  Plant  and 
its  Life.  Matthias  Jacob  Schleiden  was  then  in 
the  best  of  his  power,  and  had  an  influence  that 
amounted  to  fascination  on  many  of  the  younger 
men.  Behind  him  lay  a  terrible  struggle.  He 
had  begun  his  career  as  a  lawyer,  and  had  been  so 
unfortunate  that  he  even  attempted  his  life.  With 
his  interest  in  botany  a  new  life  began,  and  he 
worked  with  the  energy  of  one  raised  from  the 
dead.  He  was  certainly  an  original  thinker.  His 
name  is  known  to  us  to-day  especially  as  the 
founder  of  the  cell-theory.     This  is  the  greatest 


48  HAECKEL 

distinction  that  he  has  earned.  But  at  that  time 
he  had  a  much  more  general  importance  as  a 
leader  in  the  struggle  to  introduce  ascertain  method 
of  scientific  research.  A  somewhat  obscure  epoch 
was  coming  to  a  close,  a  more  or  less  superficial 
natural  philosophy  having  sought  to  replace  sound 
investigation.  The  struggle  had  ended  with  the 
decisive  victory  of  the  simple  discovery  of  facts. 
There  was  everywhere  a  vague  feeling  that  the 
progress  of  science  was  best  secured  by  a  bald 
enumeration  and  registration  of  bones,  of  the  joints 
in  the  limbs  of  insects,  or  of  pollen-filaments, 
rather  than  by  the  romantic  and  spirited  leaps  of 
natural  philosophy  over  all  the  real  problems  into 
the  heavens  above.  The  question  now  arose 
whether  this  narrow  method  really  exhausted  the 
nature  of  things;  whether  scientific  specialism, 
with  its  laurels  of  victory,  would  not  prove  in  the 
end  an  equally  dangerous  enemy.  What  was 
"better"  for  the  time  being  might  be  very  far 
from  really  "good."  It  was  here  that  Schleiden 
stepped  in.  He  fought  against  the  prevailing 
specialism,  at  first  in  his  own  particular  province 
of  botany.  He  did  not,  indeed,  take  up  the  cause 
of  the  exploded  pyrotechnics  of  the  older  natural 
philosophy,  but  pleaded  for  more  general  critical- 
philosophical  methods.  These  must  be  preserved 
in  any  circumstances.  The  great  botanist,  he  said, 
is  not  the  man  who  can  determine  ten  thousand 
species  of  plants  according  to  the  received  models, 
but  the  man  of  clear  logic  and  wide  deductions 
from  his  lore.     Botany  must   be   conceived   as  a 


EARLY    YOUTH  49 

distinct  branch  of  general  thought ;  otherwise  it  is 
worthless,  and  its  herbarium  may  rot  unnoticed  in 
the  corner  and  its  discoveries  be  the  outcome  of 
blind  hazard.  Schleiden  himself  had  no  perception 
of  the  great  idea  that  Darwin  was  to  bring  into  his 
province  afterwards — the  idea  of  the  variability  of 
species  and  of  evolution,  which  brought  to  a  criti- 
cal stage  the  question  whether  the  botanist  was  to 
be  merely  a  subordinate  museum-secretary  or  a 
creative  thinker,  a  prophet  of  nature  to  whom 
plants  would  be  part  of  a  general  philosophy,  a 
part  of  God  in  the  ideal  sense  of  evolution.  Yet 
Schleiden's  simple  warning  cry  made  a  deep  im- 
pression on  many  of  the  young  men  especially. 
There  was  a  note  of  aspiration  in  it,  an  assurance 
that  they  were  waiting  for  a  sun  that  must  rise 
somewhere.  He  was  a  master  of  language.  There 
was  the  stuS  of  the  poet  in  him.  His  works  strayed 
out  far  beyond  the  range  of  his  own  province. 
Haeckel  himself  did  the  same  work  in  later  years. 
It  is  no  wonder  that  Schleiden  had  a  magical 
influence  over  him.  In  this  case,  indeed,  it  seemed 
as  if  the  attraction  was  to  determine  his  own 
career. 

Schleiden  taught  botany  at  Jena  University. 
Haeckel  was  still  in  the  higher  forms  of  his  school 
at  Merseburg,  and  remained  there  when  his  father 
resigned  his  position  in  the  State  service,  and 
eventually  removed  to  Berlin.  At  this  time  the 
ardent  botanist  decided  to  adopt  the  science  of 
plants  as  his  life-study  when  his  final  examination 
was   over.     Schleiden   would  teach  him   how   to 

4 


50  HAECKEL 

combine  philosophy  with  botany.  Then  he  would 
try  to  roam  over  the  world  as  a  practical  botanist 
and  visit  the  far-off  zones  where  Mother  Earth 
poured  out  her  cornucopia  of  forms  so  generously. 

While  still  in  the  higher  form  at  school  he  made 
a  preliminary  visit  to  Jena.  Everything  seemed 
so  pleasant  and  charming.  He  made  the  journey 
on  foot.  These  long  walks  have  always  been  his 
pride — to  start  out  like  a  travelling  scholar,  with 
hardly  anything  in  his  pocket,  to  live  on  bread  and 
water,  and  sleep  in  the  hay  at  night ;  but  to  enjoy 
to  the  full  all  the  incomparable  delights  that  the 
great  magician,  nature,  provides  for  the  faithful 
novice — scenery,  beautiful  orchids,  thoughts  of  God, 
Goethe,  and  the  world.  It  was  in  1849  that  he 
visited  Jena.  He  has  described  it  himself :  '*  After 
I  had  reverently  admired  the  Goethe-room  in  the 
castle  of  Dornburg,  I  wandered,  on  a  hot  July  day, 
over  the  shady  meadows  to  Jena,  singing  lustily 
with  my  gay  comrades.  As  I  entered  the  venerable 
old  market-place  I  found  a  troop  of  lively  students 
in  front  of  the  Burgkeller,  with  coloured  caps  and 
long  pipes,  singing,  and  drinking  the  famous  Lich- 
tenhain  beer  from  wooden  tankards.  It  made  a 
great  impression  on  me,  and  as  I  took  a  tankard 
with  them  I  made  up  my  mind  that  I  would  some 
day  be  one  of  them." 


CHAPTER  II 


AT    THE    UNIVEKSITT 


IT  was  botany  itself  that  thwarted  aU  these 
designs.  The  examination  had  passed  off 
happily.  Rooms  were  taken  at  Jena,  at  the 
Easter  of  1852,  for  the  advanced  study  under 
Schleiden.  Then  the  indefatigable  collector  had 
an  adventure  on  a  cold  March  day.  He  spent 
hours  in  the  wet  meadows  by  the  river  Saale, 
searching  for  a  rare  plant,  the  squill  (Scilla 
hifolia).  He  met  with  the  fate  of  the  angler  in 
the  story,  who  fell  into  the  water  in  his  haste 
to  secure  his  big  pike.  He  landed  the  fish,  but 
not  himself.  The  plant  was  found,  but  Haeckel's 
zeal  was  punished  with  a  severe  rheumatism. 
He  had  to  go  home  to  his  parents  at  Berlin  to 
be  tended.  At  Berlin  he  begins  his  studies,  and 
the  event  to  some  extent  decides  his  career.  It 
would  now  be  many  years  before  he  would  see 
Jena  again ;  and  through  his  efforts  it  would 
become  one  of  the  leading  schools,  not  of  botany, 
but  of  zoology — a  school  of  philosophical  zoology, 
however,  in  the  sense  of  Schleiden. 


51 


52  HAECKEL 

Berlin  had  secured  a  botanist  of  the  first  rank 
a  year  before,  Alexander  Braun.  He,  too,  was 
a  thoughtful  botanist,  who  would  in  his  way  agree 
very  well  with  Schleiden.  He  was  convinced  that 
botany  did  not  wholly  consist  in  the  determina- 
tion of  new  plant-forms  and  the  almost  fruitless 
effort  to  set  up  a  system  on  which  all  particular 
diagnoses  would  be  rigidly  played  as  on  a  piano. 
He  believed  that  there  must  be  a  more  profound 
conception  of  it,  which  would  take  '^form,"  as 
such,  as  one  of  its  problems,  and  would  aim,  not 
at  the  formation  of  as  large  a  collection  as  possible, 
but  at  the  construction  of  a  science  for  which 
Goethe  had  long  ago  found  a  name — morphology, 
or  the  science  of  forms.  It  happened  that  Braun 
was  a  friendly  visitor  at  the  house  of  Haeckel's 
parents  at  Berlin.  The  now  convalescent  fresh- 
man became  devoted  to  him,  body  and  soul ;  they 
became  close  friends,  not  merely  master  and 
pupil.  Berlin  at  that  time  afforded  many  an 
opportunity  for  practical  botanising.  Bare  marsh- 
plants  then  flourished  in  the  bed  of  the  Spree, 
which  has  since  been  cleared.  The  Botanical 
Garden  was  full  of  good  things.  Haeckel  used 
to  tell  with  pride,  long  afterwards,  with  what 
readiness  he  flung  himself  into  the  work,  practical 
as  well  as  theoretical,  on  these  excursions  with 
Professor  Braun.  ''  On  one  of  our  botanical 
expeditions  we  wanted  to  get  a  floating  chara 
from  a  pond.  Braun  took  off  his  boots  in  his 
usual  way  in  order  to  wade  to  the  spot.  But  I 
was  before  him.     I  quickly  undressed,  forgot  my 


AT    THE    UNIVERSITY  53 

naughty  rheumatism,  and  swam  to  the  spot,  to 
bring  him  a  quantity  of  the  plant  he  wanted. 
That  was  my  first  piece  of  heroism,  perhaps  my 
greatest." 

But  in  all  this  pleasant  botanising  there  was 
no  serious  outlook  on  his  future  profession. 
Haeckel's  father,  with  his  official  way  of  looking 
at  things,  could  not  reconcile  himself  to  scientific 
research  as  an  avocation.  It  is  an  old  belief 
that  the  way  to  all  preoccupation  with  the  science 
of  living  things  lies  through  medicine.  One  may 
question  that  to-day.  It  was  the  rock  on  which 
Darwin  nearly  came  to  grief.  A  man  may  be 
a  very  gifted  botanist,  yet  be  quite  unfitted  for 
the  medical  profession.  One  must  have  a  real 
vocation  to  become  a  physician,  more  than  for 
any  other  calling,  or  else  it  is  a  hopeless  blunder. 
The  talents  are  divided  in  much  the  same  way 
as  between  the  historian  and  the  soldier.  It  is 
true  that  the  two  may  be  united,  but  it  is  equally 
true  that  very  good  historians  have  made  very 
poor  soldiers.  What  the  medical  man  learns  in 
his  studies  is,  of  course,  always  valuable.  But 
it  offers  no  test  of  personal  talent  for  scientific 
research,  nor  should  it  be  supposed  that  a  capacity 
of  this  kind  would  be  able,  by  mere  formal  study, 
to  acquire  the  true  qualities  of  a  physician.  We 
must  learn  to  appreciate  the  physician's  calling  too 
much  ever  to  look  on  it  as  an  incidental  occupation. 
It  always  reminds  me  of  the  amiable  notion  of  the 
Philistine,  that  a  man  with  a  turn  for  poetry 
must  first  take  up  some  solid  profession,  and  then, 


54  HAECKEL 

once  he  is  '*  in  the  saddle,"  pour  out  verses  in  his 
leisure  hours.  Poetry  can  never  be  a  mistress  : 
it  demands  marriage  or  nothing.  Otherwise — 
well,  we  have  instances  enough. 

Haeckel  himself  afterwards  said  that  he  only 
acceded  to  his  father's  wish,  that  he  should  study 
medicine,  with  a  botanical  mental  reservation. 
He  thought  of  going  through  the  discipline 
conscientiously  until  he  became  a  physician,  and 
then  secure  a  place  as  ship's  doctor,  and  travel 
over  the  world  and  see  the  tropics.  Things  turned 
out  very  differently.  He  never  became  a  medical 
man  such  as  his  father  had  wished,  but  he  passed 
over  the  profession  into  zoology.  Botany  re- 
mained the  lost  and  never-forgotten  love  of  his 
youth.  When  we  look  back  on  his  W'hole  career 
we  can  see  that  he  was,  on  the  whole,  fortunate. 
Zoology  afforded  a  richer,  more  abundant,  and 
more  varied  material  at  that  time.  It  proved 
to  be  more  ^'  philosophical."  He  went  after  his 
father's  asses  and  found  a  kingdom.  But  to  him 
personally  it  seemed  to  be  an  unmistakable  re- 
nunciation— the  first  in  an  active  career  that 
was  to  see  many  resignations. 

•  •  •  •  • 

**  He  goes  farthest  who  does  not  know  where 
he  is  going." 

Haeckel  once  applied  this  motto  to  himself 
and  his  star,  in  a  humorous  after-dinner  speech. 
With  this  kind  of  safe  predestination  he  reached 
Wiirtzburg  in  the  autumn  of  1852  as  a  medical 
student.      Medicine   had   in  those   days   received 


AT    THE    UNIVERSITY  55 

an  entirely  new  theoretical  basis  from  Wiirtzburg 
— a  basis  that  was  calculated  to  attract  a  young 
inquirer,  who  brought  much  more  of  the  general 
Faust-spirit  to  his  work  than  aspiration  to  the 
profession  and  the  doctor's  cap,  or  the  practical 
side. 

Let  us  recall  for  a  moment  how  medicine  had 
gradually  reached  the  position  of  an  independent 
science.  Medicine  was  the  outcome  of  a  remote 
mythical  epoch.  It  was  content  with  the  effect 
of  certain  venerable  traditional  medicaments  on 
the  living  body,  but  knew  little  or  nothing  of 
the  inner  structure  of  the  body  on  which  it  tried 
its  drugs.  The  dissection  and  examination  of 
even  a  corpse  was  regarded  as  a  deadly  sin,  and 
was  visited  with  secular  punishment.  Scientific 
medicine  did  not  exist  until  this  prohibition  was 
removed;  its  first  and  most  necessary  foundation 
was  anatomy,  the  science  of  the  bodily  structure 
and  its  organs.  The  art  of  '*  cutting  up  "  bodies 
had  seemed  too  revolting.  Moreover,  no  sooner 
had  the  science  of  anatomy  been  founded  than 
the  range  of  the  human  eye  itself  was  considerably 
enlarged.  The  microscope  was  invented.  A  new 
world  came  to  light  in  the  dissection  of  the  body. 
Beyond  their  external  appearance  it  revealed  the 
internal  composition  of  the  various  organs.  The 
eye  sees  a  shred  of  skin,  a  piece  of  intestine,  or 
a  section  of  the  liver.  The  microscope  fastens  on 
a  tiny  particle  of  this  portion  of  the  body,  and 
reveals  in  it  a  deeper  layer  of  unsuspected 
structures.     It   is   well   known   in   the  history   of 


56  HAECKEL 

microscopic  discovery  that  the  more  powerful 
lenses  and  the  improved  methods  of  research  were 
only  gradually  introduced,  and  enabled  students 
to  found  a  new  and  much  profounder  anatomy. 
As  soon  as  this  science  appeared  it  was  given 
the  special  name  of  '^  histology,"  or  the  science 
of  the  tissues  (hista).  Its  particular  achievement 
is  the  discovery  that  in  man,  the  animal,  and 
the  plant,  all  the  parts  of  the  body  prove,  when 
sufficiently  magnified,  to  be  composed  of  small 
living  elements,  which  are  known  as  cells.  The 
discovery  of  the  cell  was  made  in  the  latter  part 
of  the  third  decade  of  the  nineteenth  century. 
These  cells  join  together  in  homogeneous  groups 
in  order  to  accomplish  one  or  other  function  in  the 
body,  and  thus  form  its  ''  tissues."  Their  intricate 
structure  is  unravelled  by  the  histologist,  micro- 
scope in  hand.  It  is  evident  that  in  this  way 
a  new  basis  was  provided  for  anatomy,  and  there- 
fore also  for  medicine.  In  the  fifties  Wiirtzburg 
was  the  leading  school  of  histology,  or  the  science 
of  these  tissues  composed  of  cells.  Albert  Kolliker, 
professor  of  anatomy  there  since  1847,  published 
his  splendid  Manual  of  Histology  at  the  very  time 
when  Haeckel  was  studying  under  him.  Franz 
Leydig,  a  tutor  there  since  1849,  was  working 
in  the  same  direction.  The  third  member  of  the 
group,  made  professor  in  1849,  was  Eudolf 
Virchow,  a  young  teacher  then  in  his  best  years. 
It  was  Yirchow  who  did  most  to  bring  practical 
medicine  into  line  with  histology.  As  the  vital 
processes  in  the  human  body  seemed  to  him,  with 


AT    THE    UNIVERSITY  57 

his  strict  histological  outlook,  to  be  traced  back 
always  to  the  tissue-building  cells,  he  concluded 
that  disease  also,  or  the  pathological  condition 
of  the  body,  and  therefore  the  proper  field  of  the 
medical  man,  was  a  process  in  these  cells.  Man 
seemed  to  him  to  be  a  "  cell-state  "  :  the  tissues 
were  the  various  active  social  strata  in  this  state : 
and  disease  was,  in  its  ultimate  source,  a  conflict 
in  the  state  between  the  citizens,  the  tissue- 
forming  cells,  that  normally  divide  the  work 
amongst  them  for  the  common  good.  Pathology 
must  be  cellular  pathology.  The  science  was 
already  being  taught  by  Virchow  at  Wiirtzburg, 
and  the  dry  bones  of  it  were  covered  with  flesh 
for  his  hearers.  But  his  ideas  were  not  published 
until  a  few  years  afterwards  (1858). 

In  the  first  three  terms  Haeckel  studied  chiefly 
under  Kolliker  and  Ley  dig.  They  taught  him 
animal  and  human  embryology,  as  it  was  then 
conceived.  Embryology  was  the  science  of  the 
development  of  the  individual  animal  or  man, 
the  description  of  the  series  of  changes  that  the 
chick  passes  through  in  the  egg  or  the  human 
embryo  in  the  womb.  This  science,  also,  had 
been  profoundly  aflected  by  the  invention  of  the 
microscope.  Firstly,  the  spermatozoa,  the  active, 
microscopically  small  particles  in  the  animal  and 
human  sperm,  had  been  discovered.  Then,  in 
the  twenties,  Karl  Ernst  von  Baer  had  discovered 
the  human  ovum.  The  relation  of  these  things 
to  the  cell-theory  was  clear.  It  was  indubitable 
that  each   of  these   male   spermatozoa   and   each 


58  HAECKEL 

female  ovum  was  a  cell.  They  melted  together 
and  were  blended  into  a  new  cell  in  the  act  of 
procreation,  and  from  this,  by  a  process  of  repeated 
cleavage  of  cells,  the  new  individual  was  developed 
with  all  his  millions  of  cells  and  all  the  elaborate 
tissues  that  these  cells  united  to  form.  A  whole 
world  of  marvellous  features  came  to  light,  but  the 
key  to  the  unriddling  of  them  was  still  wanting. 

However,  the  Wiirtzburg  school  was  at  least 
agreed  as  to  method,  which  was  the  main  thing; 
its  leaders  were  determined  to  press  on  to  the 
solution  of  these  problems  on  purely  scientific 
lines.  Everything  was  to  be  brought  into  a 
logical  relation  of  cause  and  effect,  and  there 
was  to  be  no  intrusion  of  the  supernatural,  no 
mysticism.  Natural  laws  must  be  traced  in  the 
life  of  the  cells  and  in  the  history  of  the  ovum 
and  the  embryo.  The  cells  were  to  be  regarded 
in  the  same  way  as  the  astronomer  regards  his 
myriads  of  glittering  bodies.  In  this  way  the 
science  of  histology  had  been  founded,  and 
embryology  had  assumed  a  scientific  character 
in  the  hands  of  Yon  Baer.  The  microscope  kept 
the  attention  of  students  to  facts,  and  did  not 
suffer  them  to  lose  themselves  in  the  clouds. 
Thus  a  foundation-stone  was  laid  in  Haeckel's 
thoughts  which  he  would  never  discard. 

In  the  later  years  of  the  Darwinian  controversy 
he  was  destined  to  come  into  sharp  conflict  with 
both  Virchow  and  Kolliker.  Each  of  them  came 
to  look  on  him  as  the  sober  hen  does  on  the 
naughty    chick  it   has   brought  into   the    world, 


AT   THE    UNIVERSITY  59 

that  madly  tries  to  swim  on  the  treacherous 
waters  of  Darwinism.  But  forty  years  afterwards 
— after  many  a  knife-edged  word  had  been  thrown 
in  the  struggle — the  aged  Kolliker  was  one  of 
those  who  entered  their  names  in  the  list  of  men 
of  science  who  erected  a  bust  in  the  Zoological 
Institute  at  Jena  in  honour  of  Haeckel's  sixtieth 
birthday. 

However,  it  was  a  different,  an  apparently 
trivial,  yet,  as  it  turned  out,  most  momentous 
interest  that  quickened  him  during  these  Univer- 
sity years. 

The  impulse  to  microscopic  research,  that  had 
led  to  the  foundation  of  histology  and  embryology, 
had  brought  about  a  third  great  advance  which 
had  an  important  bearing  on  zoology.  When  we 
stroll  along  the  beautiful  shore  of  the  Mediter- 
ranean at  Naples  to-day,  with  eyes  bent  on  the 
blue  surface  from  which  Capri  rises  like  a  siren, 
and  on  the  cloud-capped  Vesuvius  with  its  violet 
streaks  of  lava  cutting  across  the  green  country, 
we  notice  in  the  foreground  of  the  picture  a  stout 
building,  with  very  large  windows,  planted  with 
the  boldness  of  a  parvenu  amongst  the  foliage. 
It  is  the  ^'  Zoological  Station,"  built  by  Dohrn, 
a  German  zoologist,  at  the  beginning  of  the 
seventies.  Anton  Dohrn  was  one  of  Haeckel's  first 
pupils,  and  was  personally  initiated  by  him  into 
the  study  of  marine  life,  at  Heligoland  in  1865. 
Zoologists  who  work  in  the  station  to-day  find  it 
very  comfortable.  Little  steamers  with  dipping 
apparatus   bring   the   inhabitants   of    the   bay   to 


60  HAECKEL 

them.  There  is  a  large  aquarium  at  hand.  You 
sit  down  to  your  microscope,  and  work.  The 
material  is  *'  fresh  to  hand  "  every  day.  There 
are  now  many  of  these  stations  at  well-exposed 
spots  on  the  coast  in  various  countries — sea- 
observatories,  as  it  were,  in  which  the  student 
examines  his  marine  objects  much  as  the 
astronomer  observes  his  planets  and  comets  and 
double  stars  at  night.  To-day,  when  a  young 
man  is  taking  up  zoology,  and  he  is  asked  what 
university  he  is  going  to,  he  may  say  that  he 
is  going  down  to  the  coast,  to  Naples,  to  do 
practical  work.  When  the  long  vacation  comes, 
swarms  of  professors  go  from  the  inland  towns 
to  one  or  other  seaside  place,  as  far  as  the  purse 
will  take  them.  All  this  is  a  new  thing  under 
the  sun.  The  zoologist  of  the  olden  days  sat  in 
his  study  at  home.  He  caught  and  studied  what- 
ever was  found  in  his  own  district.  The  rest  came 
by  post — skins,  skeletons,  amphibians  and  fishes 
in  spirit,  dried  insects,  hard  shells  of  Crustacea, 
mussels  and  snails  of  all  sorts;  but  only  the 
shells  always,  the  hard,  dry  parts  of  star- 
fishes, sea-urchins,  corals,  &c.  Animals  of  the 
rarest  character  were  thrown  away  because  they 
could  not  very  well  be  preserved  in  spirit  and 
sent  from  the  North  Sea  or  the  Mediterranean 
to  Professor  Dry-as-dust.  In  this  state  of  things 
the  advance  in  microscopic  work  brought  no 
advantage.  But  at  last  it  dawned  on  students 
that  the  sea  is  the  cradle  of  the  animal  world. 
Whole   stems    of    animals   flourished   there,    and 


AT    THE    UNIVERSITY  61 

there  only.  Every  wave  was  full  of  innumerable 
microscopic  creatures,  of  the  most  instructive 
forms.  Amongst  them  were  found  the  young 
embryonic  forms  of  familiar  animals.  At  last  the 
cry,  ^'  To  the  sea,"  was  raised.  The  older 
professor  of  zoology  had  suffered  from  a  kind  of 
hydrophobia.  It  was  not  possible  to  teach  very 
much  at  Berlin  about  the  anatomy,  histology,  and 
embryology  of  the  sea-urchin  from  a  few  dried 
flinty  shells.  At  Wiirtzburg,  animals  were  subtly 
discussed  by  men  who  had  never  made  a  journey 
to  see  them,  while  they  were  trampled  under  foot 
every  day  by  the  visitors  bathing  in  Heligoland. 
They  must  move.  It  was  not  necessary  to  go 
round  the  world:  a  holiday  journey  to  the  North 
Sea  or  the  Mediterranean  would  suffice.  Every 
cultured  man  had  always  considered  that  he  must 
make  at  least  one  pilgrimage  to  classic  lands 
before  his  education  was  complete.  It  was  only 
a  question  of  changing  material.  They  were  not 
to  confine  themselves  to  examining  ruined  temples 
and  aqueducts,  but  to  take  their  microscopes  down 
to  the  coast,  draw  a  bucketful  of  sea-water,  and 
examine  its  living  contents — the  living  medusa 
and  sea-urchin,  and  the  living  world  of  the 
swarming  infusoria.  But  it  was  like  the  rending 
of  the  great  curtain  of  the  temple.  Zoology 
seemed  to  expand  ten-fold,  a  hundred-fold,  in  a 
moment.  A  room  in  an  obscure  inn  by  the  sea, 
a  microscope,  and  a  couple  of  glasses  of  salt-water 
with  sediment  every  morning — and  the  finest 
studies  at  Paris   and   London   were   as   ploughed 


62  HAECKEL 

land,  without  a  single  blade,  in  face  of  this 
revelation.  It  was  a  Noah's  ark  in  the  space  of 
a  pinch  of  snuff. 

One  day  the  young  medical  student  heard,  in 
the  middle  of  his  histology  and  zoology,  that 
Kolliker  had  come  back  from  Messina.  He  had 
been  studying  lower  marine  life  there.  In  1853, 
two  young  men  were  together  in  the  Gutenberg 
forest  near  Wiirtzburg.  One  of  them,  Karl 
Gegenbaur,  had  been  abroad  with  Kolliker.  With 
his  impressions  still  fresh,  he  tells  Haeckel  about 
his  zoological  adventures  in  the  land  of  the 
Cyclops. 

Gegenbaur,  eight  years  older  than  Haeckel,  was 
by  birth  and  education  a  typical  Wiirtzburger.  He, 
too,  had  studied  medicine,  and  had  practised  at  the 
hospital.  But  he  had  already  advanced  beyond 
that.  His  stay  at  Messina  had  been  devoted 
entirely  to  zoological  purposes.  A  year  later  he 
would  be  teaching  anatomy  at  Wiirtzburg,  and  a 
year  later  still  he  would  be  called  to  Jena.  From 
that  time  he  began  to  be  known  as  a  master  of 
comparative  anatomy — especially  after  1859,  when 
his  Elements  of  the  science  was  published,  a  classic 
in  its  way  that  still  exercises  some  influence. 

There  is  nothing  romantic  in  his  career,  nor 
could  we  seek  any  element  of  the  kind  in  a 
man  of  Gegenbaur's  character.  But  his  young 
and  undecided  companion  seemed  to  catch  sight 
of  a  new  ideal  as  he  spoke.  He  would  complete 
his  medical  studies,  and  then  shake  himself  free 
of    surgery   and    hospital.     He    would    take    his 


AT    THE    UNIVERSITY  63 

microscope  down  South,  where  the  snowy  summit 
of  Etna  towered  above  the  orange-trees,  and  study 
the  beautiful  marine  animals  by  the  azure  sea 
and  the  white  houses,  in  the  orange-laden  air,  and 
drink  in  ideas  at  the  magic  fount  of  these  wonderful 
animal  forms,  and  live  out  the  lusty,  golden  years 
of  youth  on  the  finest  coast  in  Europe.  From 
that  moment  Haeckel  felt  a  restless  inspiration. 
He  had  no  idea  what  it  was  that  he  was  going  to 
investigate  at  Messina ;  and  he  certainly  did  not 
know  when  and  how  he  was  to  get  there.  But 
he  continued  his  medical  studies  with  a  vague 
hope  that  it  was  only  preliminary  work ;  that  some 
day  he  would  do  what  his  friend  Gegenbaur  had 
done. 

They  were  very  good  friends,  these  two.  They 
were  drawn  together  by  the  strong  magnetism  of 
two  true  natures  that  understood  each  other  to 
the  golden  core,  though  in  other  respects  they 
were  as  different  as  possible.  Gegenbaur  was  no 
enthusiast.  His  ideal  was  '^  to  keep  cool  to  the 
very  heart."  But  he  was  at  one  with  Haeckel 
in  a  feeling  for  a  broad  outlook  in  scientific  re- 
search. He  never  shrank  from  large  connections  or 
vast  deductions,  as  long  as  they  were  led  up  to  by 
a  sober  and  patient  logic.  This  logical  character 
he  afterwards  recognised  in  Darwin's  idea  of 
evolution,  and  so  the  friends  once  more  found 
themselves  in  agreement,  and  for  a  long  time 
they  were  a  pair  of  real  Darwinian  Dioscuri. 
This  feeling  for  moderation  and  at  the  same  time 
for  far-reaching  logic  was  combined  in  Gegenbaur 


64  HAECKEL 

with  a  certain  steady  and  unerring  independence 

of  character.     He  made  little  noise,  but  he  never 

swerved   from   his   aim.     What   he   accomplished 

with  all  these  qualities,  in  many  other  provinces 

besides  Darwinism,  cannot  be  told  here.     It  may 

be  read  in  the  history  of  zoology.     He  had,  as  far 

as  such  a  thing  was  possible,  a  restful  influence 

of  the  most  useful  character  on  Haeckel.     If  we 

imagine   what  Darwinism  would  have  become  in 

the  nineteenth  century  in  the  hands  of  such  men 

as  Gegenbaur,  without  Haeckel,  we  can  appreciate 

the  difference   in   temperament  between  the  two 

men.     With   Gegenbaur  evolution   was  always  a 

splendid  new  technical  instrument  that  no  layman 

must  touch  for  fear  of  spoiling  it.     With  Haeckel 

it  became  a  devouring  wave,  that  will  one  day, 

perhaps,  give  its  name  to  the  century.     In  other 

natures  these  differences  might  have  led  to  open 

conflict.     But   Haeckel   and   Gegenbaur  show  us 

that,  like  so  many  of  our  supposed  ^'differences," 

they  can  at  least  live  together  in  perfect  accord 

in  the  freshest  years  of  life,  each  bearing  fruit  in 

its  kind. 

•  •  •  •  • 

When  we  find  Haeckel  intimate  in  this  way  with 
Gegenbaur,  his  senior  by  eight  years,  we  realise 
how  close  he  was  at  that  time  to  the  whole  of  the 
Wiirtzburg  circle.  The  two  generations  were  not 
yet  sharply  divided,  as  they  subsequently  were. 
Most  of  them  fought  either  with  or  against  him  at 
a  later  date,  but  they  belonged,  at  all  events,  to 
the  same  stratum.     But  the  split  between  the  two 


AT    THE    UNIVERSITY  65 

generations  was  felt  when  one  pronounced  the 
name  of  Johannes  Miiller,  of  Berlin — the  physiolo- 
gist (not  the  historian). 

All  who  then  taught  histology,  embryology, 
comparative  anatomy,  or  cellular  pathology  at 
Wiirtzburg  had  sat  at  his  feet,  either  spiritually 
or  in  person.  Johannes  Miiller,  born  at  the 
beginning  of  the  century,  was  appointed  Professor 
of  Anatomy  and  Physiology  at  Berlin  the  year 
before  Haeckel  was  born.  That  indicates  the 
distance  between  them.  It  was  in  Miiller's  incre- 
dibly primitive  laboratory  that,  as  Haeckel  tells, 
the  theory  of  the  animal  cell  was  established  by 
his  assistant,  Theodor  Schwann,  after  Schleiden 
had  proved  the  vegetal  cell.  Miiller  himself  had 
founded  histology  in  his  own  way.  He  was  the 
real  parent  of  the  idea  that  the  zoologist  ought 
to  go  and  work  by  the  sea.  We  have  a  model  of 
this  kind  of  work  and  at  the  same  time  a  superb 
work  for  embryological  matters  in  Miiller's  epoch- 
making  Studies  of  the  Larvce  and  Metamorphoses 
of  the  Echinoderms.  He  had  brought  comparative 
anatomy  beyond  the  stage  of  Cuvier,  to  a  point 
where  Gegenbaur  could  begin.  From  his  school 
came  Rudolf  Virchow,  who  applied  the  cell-theory 
to  medicine,  and  Emil  du  Bois-Reymond,  who 
opened  out  a  new  path  in  physiology  by  his  studies 
of  animal  electricity.  Miiller  had  done  pioneer 
work  with  remarkable  vigour  in  all  the  various 
branches  of  research,  diverging  afterwards  to  an 
enormous  extent,  that  pursue  these  methods. 
The  many-headed  (young  and  half-young)  genera- 

5 


66  HAECKEL 

tion,  in  which  Haeckel  was  growing,  saw  the  whole 
previous  generation  embodied  in  the  single  name 
of  Miiller.  He  seemed  to  be  a  kind  of  scientific 
Winkelried,  except  that  the  fifty  spears  he  bore  on 
his  breast  were  so  many  lines  of  progress  eman- 
ating from  him  alone. 

Johannes  Miiller  had  the  great  and  splendid 
gift  of  never  lying  on  the  shoulders  of  his  pupils 
with  an  Alpine  weight  of  authority.  It  was  a 
secret  of  his  personality  that  we  admire  but  can 
hardly  express  in  words  to-day.  Everybody  learned 
from  him  what  a  great  individuality  is.  He 
exerted  a  kind  of  moral  suggestion  in  teaching  men 
to  be  free,  great,  enlightened,  and  true.  His 
pupils  have  worked  at  the  development  of  his  ideas 
with  absolute  freedom.  No  part  of  them  was  to 
be  regarded  as  sacred,  and,  as  a  matter  of  fact, 
in  the  chief  questions  no  part  has  remained. 

One  approaches  the  inner  life  of  a  man  like 
Miiller  with  a  certain  timidity,  and  asks  how  he 
became  what  he  was.  There  can  be  no  question 
that  the  fundamental  trait  of  his  character  was  a 
peculiarly  deep  religious  feeling.  At  heart  he  was 
a  mystic.  The  whole  magic  of  his  personal  influ- 
ence sprang  from  these  depths.  By  profession  he 
was  a  physiologist,  an  exact  scientist.  Never  did 
he  swerve  a  hair's  breadth  from  the  iron  laws  of 
research.  But  beneath  it  all  was  a  suppressed 
glow  of  fervour.  Every  one  who  understood  him, 
every  one  who  was  a  true  pupil  of  his,  learned  it  by 
a  kind  of  hypnotism.  Externally  he  was  all  for 
laborious  investigation,   whether  in   dissecting   a 


AT    THE    UNIVERSITY  67 

star-fish  for  you  or  classifying  fishes — though  he 
would  have  a  full  sense  of  your  ardent  longing  for 
an  inner  trust  in  life  and  a  philosophy  of  life.  Both 
elements  might  change  considerably  in  the  pupil : 
the  method  of  investigation  without — the  ideal  of 
the  comprehensive  vision  within.  But  what  never 
left  any  man  who  had  followed  Miiller  was  the 
warning  cry  that  these  things,  within  and  without, 
should  go  together ;  that,  in  the  larger  sense,  it  is 
not  possible  to  count  the  joints  in  the  stalk  of  an 
encrinite  without  feeling  a  thrill  in  the  deepest 
depth  of  the  mind  and  the  heart. 

It  is  so  common  a  spectacle  in  history  for  dis- 
ciples to  condemn  their  masters  with  cold  smiles 
that  we  forget  how  pitiful  it  is.  No  pupil  of 
Johannes  Miiller  has  ever  felt  that  he  had  done 
with  him,  and  might  quit  him  with  ingratitude. 
He  had  pupils,  it  is  true,  who  did  not  lack  belief 
in  themselves,  and  who  became  famous  enough  to 
give  them  a  sense  of  power ;  men  who  have  even- 
tually come  to  conclusions  diametrically  opposed  to 
those  that  Miiller  had  taught  them.  Yet  they  re- 
spect him.  Living  witnesses  still  tell  of  the  glance 
that  bored  into  you,  and  could  not  be  evaded. 
But  there  must  have  been  a  greater  power  in  the 
man  than  this  piercing  glance.  It  was  a  glance 
that  survived  the  grave,  and  laid  on  one  a  duty  ; 
a  glance  that  shot  up  in  the  darkness  of  memory 
if  the  duty  was  not  fulfilled — the  duty  of  going  to 
the  foundation  of  things.  Whether  you  are  exam- 
ining the  larva  of  an  echinoderm  or  the  light  of  a 
distant  star,  God  is  there.     Whether  you  explain 


68  HAECKEL 

your  echinoderm-larva  in  this  way  or  that ;  whether 
you  beUeve  your  star  to  be  a  sun  or  a  burnt-out 
cinder ;  whether  you  conceive  God  in  this  way  or 
another — you  shall  feel  that  the  bridge  is  there 
in  absolutely  everything.  Every  glance  into  the 
microscope  is  a  service  of  God.  It  was  Goethe's 
deepest  sun  that  threw  a  great,  radiant  spark  out 
of  this  curious,  dark,  angular,  unintelligible  jewel. 

Such  a  man  was  bound  to  be  more  than  Kolliker, 
Virchow,  and  Gegenbaur  to  Haeckel.  Miiller  was 
still  teaching  at  Berlin,  and  Haeckel's  best  star 
brought  him  to  sit  in  reality  at  the  feet  of  the 
great  teacher,  who  could  so  well  speak  soul  to 
soul  to  him. 

At  the  Easter  of  1854  Haeckel  returned  from 
Wiirtzburg  to  Berlin.  He  was  now  twenty  years 
old,  and  it  was  at  this  juncture  that,  to  use  his 
own  phrase,  the  vast  impression  of  Miiller  fell  on 
him.  A  portrait  of  Miiller  still  hangs  over  the 
desk  in  his  study  in  the  Zoological  Institute  at 
Jena.  '^  If  I  ever  become  tired  at  my  work,"  he 
says,  '*!  have  only  to  look  at  it  to  get  new 
strength."  The  influence  of  the  much  older  man, 
who,  however,  died  at  a  far  earlier  age  than 
Haeckel  will  do,  only  lasted  for  a  short  time.  But 
Haeckel  has  preserved  a  memory  of  him  that  is 
only  eclipsed  by  the  memory  of  one  other  man — 
Darwin.  Miiller  did  not  live  to  read  Darwin's 
decisive  work,  so  that  these  two  great  ideals  of 
Haeckel's  never  crossed  each  other,  either  for  good 
or  evil.  He  himself  felt  that  there  was  a  pure 
evolution  from  one  to  the  other  in  his  mind. 


AT    THE    UNIVERSITY  69 

In  the  summer  of  1854  he  studied  comparative 
anatomy  under  Miiller,  for  which  KolHker  had 
sufficiently  prepared  him.  He  has  recorded  his 
first  impressions.  ^'  I  soon  got  to  know  him 
personally,  but  I  had  so  great  a  respect  for  him 
that  I  did  not  venture  to  approach  him  more 
closely.  He  gave  me  permission  to  work  in  the 
museum.  I  shall  never  forget  the  hours  I  spent 
there,  drawing  skulls,  while  he  walked  up  and 
down,  especially  on  Sunday  afternoons.  Often 
when  he  went  past  me  I  wanted  to  ask  him  some- 
thing. I  went  up  the  step  with  beating  heart  and 
took  hold  of  the  bell,  but  returned  without  ven- 
turing to  say  anything."  Miiller  took  some  notice 
of  the  zealous  young  student.  When  the  long 
vacation  came  round  in  August,  and  the  master, 
following  the  new  custom,  packed  up  his  bundle 
in  order  to  spend  two  months  on  practical  work 
by  the  sea,  he  allowed  Haeckel  to  go  with  him. 
Miiller's  son  and  the  later  Professor  La  Valette 
joined  the  party.  They  went  to  Heligoland. 
Miiller  taught  his  pupils  his  simple  method  of 
studying  the  living  subject.  There  was  no  witch- 
craft in  it,  but  it  had  had  to  be  invented  by  some 
one.  They  put  out  to  sea  in  a  small  boat.  A  little 
net  of  linen  or  fine  gauze,  with  a  wide  opening  and 
short  body,  was  fastened  on  a  pole.  The  mouth  of 
the  net  was  thrust  directly  under  the  surface  or  a 
little  deeper,  vertically  to  the  surface,  and  the  boat 
was  slowly  rowed  forward.  The  contents  of  the 
filtered  sea-water  remained  in  the  meshes  of  the 
net,  and  were  from  time  to  time  emptied  into  a 


70  HAECKEL 

glass  containing  sea- water.  ^'I  shall  never,"  says 
Haeckel,  ^'forget  the  astonishment  with  which  I 
gazed  for  the  first  time  on  the  swarm  of  transparent 
marine  animals  that  Miiller  emptied  out  of  his  fine 
net  into  the  glass  vessel ;  the  beautiful  medley  of 
graceful  medusae  and  iridescent  ctenophores,  arrow- 
like sagittae  and  serpent-shaped  tomopteris,  the 
masses  of  copepods  and  schizopods,  and  the  marine 
larvas  of  worms  and  echinoderms."  Miiller  called 
these  very  fine  and  generally  transparent  creatures, 
of  whose  existence  no  one  hitherto  had  had  any 
idea,  *' pelagic  sweepings"  (from  pelagos,  the  sea). 
More  recently  the  word  ''  pancton  "  (swimming 
matter)  has  been  substituted  for  his  phrase.  As 
we  now  send  whole  expeditions  over  the  seas  to 
study  ''  pancton,"  the  word  has  found  its  way  into 
ordinary  literature.  The  regular  anglers  who  were 
then  in  Heligoland  must  have  looked  on  this  subtle 
work  with  a  butterfly  net  as  a  sort  of  pleasant 
joke  bom  from  the  professional  brain.  The  young 
student  must  have  made  an  impression  on  them 
with  his  vigour,  though  he  had  not  yet  turned 
himself  into  a  marine  mammal,  living  half  in  the 
water  for  days  together.  They  called  him  a  *'  sea- 
devil."  What  pleased  the  master  most  in  him 
was  the  talent  he  already  showed  of  quickly 
sketching  the  tiny,  perishable  creature  from  the 
surface  of  the  sea  while  it  was  fresh.  Haeckel  had 
been  passionately  fond  of  drawing  from  his  early 
years.  Now  the  old  bent  agreed  with  the  new  zeal 
for  zoology.  *^  You  will  be  able  to  do  a  great  deal," 
Miiller   said  to  him.     *^And  when  once   you  are 


Fishing  in  Heligoland  in  1865. 

Anton  Dohrn  Richard  Greef  Ernst  Haeckel 

(Naples).  (Marburg).  (Jena). 

Max  Salverda  Pietro  Marchi 

(Utrecht).  (Florence). 


To  face  />.  7«). 


AT    THE    UNIVERSITY  71 

fairly  interested  in  this  fairy-land  of  the  sea,  you 
will  find  it  difficult  to  get  away  from  it."  The 
dream  of  Messina,  that  Gegenbaur  had  conjured 
up,  seemed  to  draw  nearer. 

These  lively  days  at  Heligoland  provided 
Haeckel  with  the  material  for  his  first  little  zoo- 
logical essay.  It  dealt  with  the  development  of 
the  ova  of  certain  fishes  {On  the  Ova  of  the  Scom- 
beresoces,  published  in  Miiller's  Archiv  for  1855). 
Miiller  lent  him  ova  from  the  Berlin  collection  to 
complete  his  study.  It  is  the  same  volume  of  the 
Archiv  in  which,  in  Keichert's  introduction,  the 
great  controversy  breaks  out  over  Virchow's  preg- 
nant assertion  that  each  human  being  is  a  state 
composed  of  millions  of  individual  cells. 

Haeckel  remained  with  Miiller  at  Berlin  for  the 
whole  winter,  and  was  drawn  more  and  more  into 
the  province  of  comparative  anatomy,  or,  to  speak 
more  correctly,  zoology.  The  official  Professor 
of  Zoology  at  Berlin  at  the  time  was  really  the 
aged  Lichtenstein,  who  had  occupied  the  chair 
since  1811.  Haeckel  has  humorously  described 
himself  in  later  years  as  self-taught  in  his  own 
subject,  saying  that  he  had  attended  many  most 
excellent  colleges,  but  never  visited  an  official 
school  of  zoology.  The  only  opportunity  to  do  so 
at  the  time  was  under  Lichtenstein,  but  that 
professor  bored  him  so  much  that  he  could  not 
attend  his  lectures.  Lichtenstein  was  a  venerable 
representative  of  the  old  type  of  zoologist ;  his 
ideal  was  to  give  a  careful  external  description 
of  the  species  on  the  strength  of  specimens  chosen 


72  HAECKEL 

from  a  well-stocked  museum.  A  whole  world  lay 
between  these  surviving  followers  of  Linn6  and 
the  splendid  school  of  Johannes  Miiller. 

However  that  may  be,  the  fact  was  that  under 
these  alluring  attractions  Haeckel's  studies  were 
drifting  from  the  medical  profession  to  an  *'  impe- 
cunious art."  But  as  medical  work  had  been 
chosen,  if  only  as  a  temporary  occupation, 
Haeckel  had  to  tear  himself  away  from  the  great 
magnet,  at  the  Easter  of  1855,  by  removing  to 
a  different  place.  He  chose,  as  the  least  intoler- 
able compromise,  to  return  to  Wiirtzburg.  At  all 
events  we  find  him  spending  three  terms  there. 
I  have  already  said  that  Eudolf  Virchow  was  one 
of  the  distinguished  Wiirtzburgers  at  the  time 
who  sought  most  keenly  the  solution  of  the  new 
problems  of  biology  on  the  medical  side.  Hence 
Virchow  had  to  help  him  to  find  the  bridge 
between  the  work  he  really  loved  and  the  work 
he  was  obliged  to  do.  As  a  fact,  Virchow  directed 
the  whole  of  his  studies  on  this  side  in  the  three 
terms. 

Virchow  was  not  so  fascinating  as  Johannes 
Miiller,  even  in  his  best  years.  But  it  was  some- 
thing to  be  initiated  into  medical  science  by  such 
a  man.  A  later  generation  has,  unfortunately, 
grown  accustomed  to  see  mental  antipodes  in 
Virchow  and  Haeckel.  In  1877  they  had  a 
controversy  with  regard  to  the  freedom  of  science 
that  echoed  through  the  whole  world  of  thought. 
Yet  seventeen  years  afterwards  Haeckel  himself 
(who  was  first  attacked  by  Virchow),  looking  back 


AT    THE    UNIVERSITY  .73 

on  the  days  he  spent  at  Wiirtzburg,  had  nothing 
but  grateful  recognition  to  say  of  Virchow.  *'I 
learned,"  he  says  in  1894,  *' in  the  three  terms  I 
spent  under  Virchow  the  art  of  the  finest  analytic 
observation  and  the  most  rigorous  control  of  what 
I  observed.  I  was  his  assistant  for  some  time, 
and  my  notes  were  especially  praised  by  him. 
But  what  I  chiefly  admired  in  him  at  Wiirtzburg 
was  his  wide  outlook,  the  breadth  and  philosophic 
character  of  his  scientific  ideas." 

The  theory  that  Virchow  put  before  his  pupils 
was  pure  Monism,  or  a  unified  conception  of  the 
world  without  any  distinction  of  physical  and 
metaphysical.  Life  was  defined,  not  as  a  mystic 
eccentricity  in  an  orderly  nature,  but  plainly  as 
a  higher  form  of  the  great  cosmic  mechanism. 
Man,  the  object  of  medical  science,  was  said  to  be 
merely  a  higher  vertebrate,  subject  to  the  same 
laws  as  the  rest. 

We  can  see  very  well  that  this  was  quite  natural. 
If  there  was  any  man  likely  to  put  forward  such 
views  it  was  Virchow.  He  had  passed  through 
Miiller's  school,  but  was  now  one  of  the  younger 
group  who,  even  during  Miiller's  life,  were  gradu- 
ally adopting  certain  very  profound  views  on  life 
and  man,  without  any  particular  resistance  on  the 
master's  part.  The  chief  characteristic  of  nearly 
the  whole  of  this  group  was  the  lack  of  the  vol- 
canic stratum  below  of  deep  and  personal  religious 
feeling ;  in  Miiller  this  had  been  throughout  life 
an  enchained  Titan  among  the  rocks  of  his  logical 
sense  of  realities,  yet  it  had  given  a  gentle  glow 


74  HAECKEL 

and  movement  to  the  floor  of  his  mind.     Eudolf 
Yirchow  was   the   coolest,    boldest,    and  clearest- 
minded  of  the  group.     He  went  to  the  opposite 
extreme.     If  Miiller  was  standing  on  a  volcano, 
which  he  only  repressed  by  the  giant  force  of  his 
will — a  nature  that  was  above  all  master  of  itself — 
Yirchow,   on   the    contrary,   was    standing   on    a 
glacier,  and  he  had  never  taken   the   trouble   to 
conceal   it.     I  should  not  venture  to  count   him 
amongst  the  instinctively  Monistic  minds,  in  the 
sense  of  Goethe,  to  whom  the  unity  of  God  and 
nature,  the  inorganic  and  the  organic,  the  animal 
and  the  man,  comes  as  an  ardent  and  irresistible 
feeling.     But  it   would  have  been  strange   if,  in 
those  years  and  in  the  middle  of  the  whole  scien- 
tific current  of  his  time,  his  own  organ,  his  icy 
logic,  had  not  led  him  to  the  same  conclusion ; 
that    it    is    a    simpler    method    of    research    to 
believe  in  natural  law  alone,  to  regard  the  living 
merely  as  a  complex  play  of  the  same  forces  that 
we  have  in  physics  and  chemistry,  and  to  consider 
man,  with  the  bodily  frame  of  an  ape-like  mammal, 
to  be  really  such  an  animal.     I  believe,  indeed,  that 
Yirchow  never  abandoned  this  simple  solution  in 
his  own  mind  at  any  part  of  his  career.     The  con- 
troversy he  afterwards  engaged  in  ran  on  different 
lines.     It  seems  to  me  that  at  an  early  stage  of 
his  development  he  became  convinced  that  there 
must  be  limits  to  scientific  inquiry,  not  on  logical, 
but  on  diplomatic  grounds  ;  because  it  is  not  an 
absolute  agency,  but  only  a  relatively  small  force 
amongst    many  more   powerful    institutions,   the 


AT    THE    UNIVERSITY  75 

Church,  the  State,  and  so  on.  Hence  it  would 
have  to  respect  limitations  that  were  not  drawn 
from  its  own  nature  ;  in  given  cases  it  would  have 
to  keep  silent  in  order  not  to  jeopardise  its  exist- 
ence as  a  whole.  It  is  my  firm  belief  that  this 
diplomatic  attitude  as  such  would  lead  to  the 
destruction  of  all  pursuit  of  the  truth.  It 
carefully  excludes  the  possibility  of  any  further 
martyrdoms,  but  at  the  cost  of  science's  own 
power  to  illumine  the  world.  In  my  opinion  the 
free  investigation  of  the  truth  is  an  absolute 
right.  Churches,  States,  social  orders,  moral 
precepts,  and  all  that  is  connected  with  them, 
have  to  adjust  themselves  to  this  investigation, 
and  not  the  reverse. 

However,  the  point  is  that  under  Virchow — 
more  particularly  under  Virchow,  in  fact — Haeckel 
would  be  educated  into  the  general  attitude  with 
regard  to  Grod,  nature,  life,  and  man,  to  which  he 
has  since  devoted  his  whole  energy.  In  spite  of 
Goethe — and  who  would  be  likely  to  take  Goethe 
as  his  guide  in  his  twenty-first  year  ? — the  ardent 
young  student  was  as  yet  by  no  means  firmly 
seated  in  the  saddle.  He  grubbed,  and  sought, 
and  rejected.  In  his  Hiddle  of  the  Universe  he 
tells  us  that  he  *' defended  the  Christian  belief  in 
his  twenty-first  year  in  lively  discussions  "  with  his 
free-thinking  comrades,  .  .  .  *' although  the  study 
of  human  anatomy  and  physiology,  and  the 
comparison  of  man's  frame  with  that  of  the  other 
animals,  had  already  greatly  enfeebled  my  faith. 
I  did  not  entirely  abandon  it,  after  bitter  struggles, 


76  HAECKEL 

until  my  medical  studies  were  completed,  and  I 
began  to  practise.  I  then  came  to  understand 
Faust's  saying,  ^  The  whole  sorrow  of  humanity 
oppresses  me.'  I  found  no  more  of  the  infinite 
benevolence  of  a  loving  father  in  the  hard  school 
of  life  than  I  could  see  of  *  wise  providence  '  in  the 
struggle  for  existence." 

When  the  three  terms  of  medical  training  were 
over,  he  received  another  impulse  to  his  own 
particular  interest  in  science.  Kolliker  invited 
him  in  August,  1856,  to  spend  the  two  months' 
holiday  with  him  on  the  Eiviera.  It  was  the 
first  Mediterranean  school  of  zoology,  though  as 
yet  only  a  kind  of  ^*  payment  on  account."  On  the 
journey  he  made  the  acquaintance  of  the  zoological 
museum  at  Turin  and  its  well-travelled  director, 
Filippo  de  Filippi,  and  he  saw  the  grandeur  of 
the  Maritime  Alps  on  the  Col  di  Tenda.  The 
master,  Kolliker,  Heinrich  Muller,  Karl  Kupffer 
(afterwards  professor  at  Munich),  and  he  established 
themselves  at  Nice,  and  fished  for  all  sorts  of 
creatures  with  the  Muller  net  at  Villefranche. 
Fortunately,  Muller  himself  happened  to  be  visiting 
the  Eiviera  at  the  same  time,  and  they  received 
a  direct  stimulus  from  him.  The  first  result  of 
this  journey  in  the  summer  and  autumn  was  that 
Haeckel  secured  his  degree  with  a  zoological- 
anatomical  work,  instead  of  with  a  strictly  medical 
treatise.  As  he  had  done  from  Heligoland  two 
years  before,  he  now  brought  home  from  the 
Mediterranean  the  material  for  a  short  technical 
theme.     He  again  spent  the  winter  at  Berlin  to 


AT    THE    UNIVEESITY  77 

put  it  together.  It  was  an  histological  study  of 
the  tissues  of  crabs,  and  therefore  lay  in  the 
province  of  the  articulates,  an  animal  group,  it  is 
curious  to  note,  which  he  has  not  entered  into 
more  fully  in  the  course  of  his  long  and  varied 
work  as  special  investigator.  At  Nice  he  made  a 
thorough  study  of  the  nerve-tubes  of  the  spiny 
lobster  and  other  available  marine  Crustacea, 
and  discovered  several  remarkable  new  structural 
features  in  them.  At  Berlin  he  entered  upon 
a  minute  microscopic  study  of  the  common  craw- 
fish. His  dissertation  for  the  doctorate  embodied 
the  main  results  of  his  research.  It  was  entitled 
De  telis  quihusdam  Astaci  fluviatilis,  and  was 
printed  in  March,  1857.  It  appeared  the  same 
year  in  an  enlarged  form  in  Miiller's  ArchiVj 
with  the  title  The  Tissues  of  the  Craw-fish. 
On  March  7th  he  received  his  medical  degree, 
Ehrenberg,  the  great  authority  on  the  infusoria, 
presiding.  In  the  customary  way  the  young  doctor 
had  to  announce  and  defend  several  theses.  One 
of  them  is  rather  amusing  in  view  of  later  events. 

He  most  vigorously  contested  the  possibility  of 
*'  spontaneous  generation."  The  meaning  of  the 
phrase  is  that  somewhere  or  at  some  time  a  living 
thing,  animal  or  plant,  has  arisen,  not  in  the  form 
of  a  seed  or  germ  or  sprout  from  a  parent  living 
thing,  but  as  a  direct  development  out  of  dead, 
inorganic  matter.  Haeckel  had  not  made  a 
personal  study  of  the  subject.  What  he  said  in 
his  thesis  was  merely  a  faithful  repetition  of 
Miiller's  opinion.     At  that  time  it  was   beheved 


78  HAECKEL 

that  science  had  empirically  disproved  spontaneous 
generation.  An  old  popular  belief  held  that  fleas 
and  lice  were  born  every  day  from  non-living  dirt 
and  dust,  but  that  had  been  refuted  long  before. 
No  egg,  no  animal :  every  living  thing  develops 
from  an  egg.  This  had  been  laid  down  as  a  fixed 
rule.  When  the  microscope  revealed  an  endless 
number  of  tiny  creatures  in  every  drop  of  stagnant 
water,  in  the  air  and  the  dust  and  the  soil, 
it  was  a  question  whether  the  rule  was  not 
wrong.  Surely  these  simplest  of  all  living  things, 
apparently,  were  born  by  spontaneous  generation  ? 
However,  the  question  was  believed  to  have  been 
settled  in  two  ways.  Schwann,  the  co-discoverer 
of  the  cell-theory,  had  made  certain  experiments 
which  seem  to  prove  directly  that  even  these  tiny 
beings,  the  infusoria  and  bacteria,  were  never 
formed  in  a  vessel  containing  water  and  dead 
matter,  if  it  had  been  carefully  assured  beforehand 
that  the  minute  living  germs  of  these  animals  that 
floated  in  the  air  could  not  penetrate  into  the  vessel. 
At  the  same  time  Ehrenberg  and  others  stoutly 
denied  that  the  infusoria  were  the  '^  simplest " 
organisms,  or  that  they  could  conceivably  be  bom 
in  that  way.  They  declared  that  the  infusoria 
were  ^'perfect  organisms"  in  spite  of  their  small- 
ness.  The  belief  that  these  tiny  creatures  consisted 
of  "  one  cell,"  and  so  formed,  as  it  were,  the 
ultimate  elements  of  the  plant  and  animal  worlds 
on  the  lines  of  the  cell-theory,  was  seriously 
menaced,  and  apparently  on  the  way  to  be  destroyed. 
Finally,  the  tapeworm  and  similar  parasites  had 


AT    THE    UNIVERSITY  79 

been  declared  to  evolve  by  a  kind  of  spontaneous 
generation  from  the  contents  of  the  intestines. 
But  this  also  was  proved  to  be  untrue.  Thus 
there  was  ample  material  for  a  solid  dogma :  there 
was  no  such  thing  as  spontaneous  generation. 
The  dogma,  moreover,  harmonised  with  the  pre- 
vailing belief  in  a  special  vital  force  and  a  radical 
distinction  between  the  living  and  the  dead,  which 
was  still  shared  in  a  subtle  form  by  even  a  man 
like  Miiller.  The  dogma  was  formulated.  Spon- 
taneous generation  was  struck  out  of  the  scientific 
vocabulary  as  unscientific  and  a  popular  super- 
stition. The  young  doctor,  duly  initiated  into  these 
ideas  of  the  time,  could  not  resist  the  temptation 
to  give  his  own  kick  to  the  fallen  theory.  Yet 
how  strangely  things  have  changed  since  then  ! 
Two  years  afterwards  Haeckel  ceased  to  believe 
in  a  special  vital  force;  he  was  now  absolutely 
convinced  that  there  were  unicellular  beings ;  his 
whole  theory  of  life  seemed  to  demand  spontaneous 
generation  as  a  postulate,  and  he  even  doubted 
the  force  of  the  experiments  of  Schwann  and 
others.  Haeckel  himself  became  the  keenest 
apostle  of  the  theory  of  spontaneous  generation. 
Whenever  it  is  mentioned  to-day,  we  think  of  the 
weight  of  his  name  which  he  has  cast  in  the  scale 
in  its  favour.  So  the  leaves  change  even  in  the 
forest  of  science :  yesterday  green,  to-day  red  and 
falling,  to-morrow  green  once  more.  On  the  same 
branch  as  the  dogmas  we  find  the  correctives 
growing,  that  will  at  length  split  them  open  and 
cast  them  as  empty  husks  to  the  ground. 


80  HAECKEL 

The  history  of  Haeckel's  medical  doctorate  can 
be  written  in  a  few  plain  and  touching  lines.  After 
receiving  his  degree  he  was  sent  by  his  prudent 
father,  to  keep  him  away  from  crabs  and  other 
monsters  of  the  deep,  to  Vienna  for  a  term,  to  do 
hospital  work  under  Oppolzer,  Skoda,  Hebra,  and 
Siegmund.  All  that  we  find  recorded  of  this  term 
is  that  his  old  love  of  botany  revived  in  earnest. 
Immense  quantities  of  dwarf  Alpine  plants  were 
collected.  When  the  traveller  passed  by  the  spot 
twenty-four  years  afterwards  on  a  quiet  autumn 
Sunday,  on  his  way  to  take  ship  at  Trieste  for  the 
tropical  forests  and  giant  trees  of  Ceylon,  the 
memory  of  Schneeberg  and  the  Eose-Alp  came 
upon  him  like  a  dream.  However,  the  hospital 
work,  together  with  a  short  span  of  cramming  in 
the  winter  at  Berlin,  must  have  had  some  effect, 
as  he  passed  the  State-examination  in  medicine. 
In  March,  1858,  he  was  a  ^*  practising  physician." 
He  had  in  his  hand  the  crown  of  prudent  ambition 
— and  he  felt  like  a  poor  captive.  There  was  one 
source  of  consolation — Johannes  Miiller.  While 
one  was  near  him  there  was  a  possibility  of  more 
real  work.  He  discussed  with  him  the  plan  of 
the  study  of  the  development  of  the  gregarinae 
(parasitic  protozoa),  which  he  wanted  to  conduct 
in  Miiller's  laboratory  in  the  summer  of  1858. 
Then  he  was  stricken,  like  so  many  others,  with 
the  thunderbolt  of  the  news  of  Miiller's  sudden 
death,  on  April  28th  of  the  same  year.  What 
must  he  do  now?  He  began  to  practise.  It  is 
said  on  his  own  authority  that  he  fixed  the  hours 


AT    THE    UNIVERSITY  81 

of  consultation  from  five  to  six  in  the  morning  ! 
The  result  was  that  during  a  whole  year  of  this 
philanthropic  occupation  he  had  only  three  patients, 
not  one  of  whom  died  under  his  earnest  attention. 

'*  This  success  was  enough  for  my  dear  father/' 
says  Haeckel.     We  can  well  believe  it. 

The  kindly  old  man  consented  to  one  more  year 
of  quite  extravagant  study,  in  which  all  was  to 
come  right.  It  was  to  be  a  year  of  travel,  in  Italy. 
He  was  to  devote  himself  to  the  study  of  marine 
animals,  not  merely  for  pleasure,  but  earnestly 
enough  for  him  to  find  a  basis  for  his  life  in  the 
result.  This  he  succeeded  in  doing.  Like  the 
children  of  fortune,  who  at  the  very  moment  when 
they  cannot  see  a  step  before  them  make  a  move 
that  the  Philistine  regards  as  the  safest  and  last 
refuge,  Haeckel  becomes  engaged  that  very  year  to 
his  cousin,  Anna  Sethe.  After  that,  in  January, 
1859,  he  goes  down  to  the  coast.  He  makes  for 
the  blue  Mediterranean,  which  he  already  knows 
will  prove  anything  but  an  ''unprofitable  sea"  for 
him.  He  will  conjure  up  treasures  of  science  from 
its  crystal  depths  with  his  Miiller-net ;  then  on 
to  fortune,  position,  marriage,  and  the  future.  The 
fates  have  added  a  world-wide  repute,  if  they  have 
denied  many  a  comfort. 


6 


CHAPTEE  III 


THE    RADIOLAEIA 


IN  the  January  of  1859  Haeckel,  then  in  his 
twenty-fifth  year,  came  to  Italy  with  the 
determination  '^  to  do  it  thoroughly."  By  the 
autumn  the  body  of  the  peninsula  had  been  covered 
down  to  Naples,  Capri,  and  Ischia.  The  winter, 
until  April,  1860,  was  spent  at  Messina. 

There  are  plenty  of  very  strenuous  students, 
later  Privy  Councillors  as  well  as  archaeologists 
and  zoologists,  who  find  a  year  in  Italy  a  very 
simple  matter.  They  arrive,  make  the  due  round 
of  sights,  and  then  at  once  disappear  into  some 
library  or  institute,  burying  themselves  like  moles 
in  some  special  work  or  other,  just  as  they  would 
do  at  home.  The  only  time  you  can  see  them  is 
over  their  Munich  beer  in  the  evening;  and  if 
there  are  a  number  of  them  together  they  smoke 
their  cigars  and  sing  a  German  student's  song,  as 
they  would  do  at  home.  These  good  folk  have  very 
different  dispositions  behind  their  goggles,  but  they 
have  never  been  lit  up  by  the  fire  of  Goethe.  They 
"are  quite  content  to  write  home  like  the  churlish 
Herder ;  Italy  is  pretty  enough  in  Goethe's  writings, 


82 


THE    RADIOLARIA  .83 

but  one  ought  not  to  go  there  oneself.  The 
modern  scholar  of  this  type  may  add  that  the 
cigars  are  bad  and  beer  dear.  Very  different  was 
Haeckel's  verdict.  ^'  In  Sicily  I  was  nearly  thrown 
out  of  my  line  and  made  a  landscape-painter." 
The  aesthetic  man  in  him  was  the  first  to  lift  up 
his  arms  with  vigour  under  this  new,  free,  inspiring 
sun.  His  words  are  no  idle  phrase.  The  moment 
he  tried  it  Haeckel  discovered  that  he  had  a  genuis 
for  landscape-painting.  Even  in  regard  to  this 
gift  we  see  the  truth  of  what  I  have  already  said 
in  other  connections ;  the  sternest  materialists  and 
scientific  revolutionaries  of  the  nineteenth  century 
were  men  of  considerable  artistic  power.  There 
was  the  solid  Yogt,  a  painter  and  poet ;  Moleschott, 
the  soul-comrade  of  Hermann  Hettner;  Strauss, 
who  wrote  some  poems  of  great  and  lasting  beauty ; 
Feuerbach,  and  others.  Even  Biichner,  the  boldest 
and  most  advanced  of  them  all,  has  written  poetry 
under  a  pseudonym.*  Darwin  took  only  two 
books  with  him  in  the  little  cabin  of  his  ship, 
Lyell's  Geology  and  Paradise  Lost.  There  is  a 
complete  gallery  of  fine  water-colours  in  Haeckel's 
house  to-day  that  have  been  brought  from  three 
quarters  of  the  globe.  His  son  Walter  has  in- 
herited the  artistic  gift,  and  become  a  painter.  It 
might  be  said  that  a  good  landscape-painter  would 
hardly  recompense  us  for  the  loss  of  the  philosopher 

*  Biichner's  brother  tells  how,  when  Ludwig  furtively 
brought  to  him  the  manuscript  of  Force  aiid  Matter,  he  at  once 
guessed  it  was  a  romance  or  an  epic  that  so  much  secret  work 
had  been  expended  on.    [Trans.] 


84  HAECKEL 

and  scientist  that  Haeckel  became  in  the  nine- 
teenth century.  The  simple  steel  pen,  the  inspired 
pencil  of  the  thinker,  did  more  for  humanity  in  his 
hand  than  could  have  been  done  by  the  most 
splendid  colour-symphonies  of  the  most  inspired 
landscape-painter.  I  have  often  thought  this  as  I 
looked  over,  in  the  evening  at  Haeckel's  house,  the 
then  unpublished  treasures  of  his  artistic  faculty. 
A  work  like  his  History  of  Creation  has  counted 
for  a  stratum  in  the  thought  of  humanity.  What 
are  even  the  masterpieces  of  a  Hildebrandt  in 
comparison  with  it !  Yet  there  was  undoubtedly  the 
note  of  genius  in  these  drawings ;  some  of  them 
showed  more  than  Hildebrandt's  cleverness  (we 
know  to-day  that  Hildebrandt's  highly  coloured 
pictures  did  not  even  approximate  to  the  real 
natural  light  of  southern  scenes)  and  glow  of 
colour.  It  seemed  to  me  that  here  again  the  man 
had  dreams  of  a  lost  love :  a  dream  of  the  gay, 
wandering  pittore^  who  asks  nothing  but  a  sunset 
in  violet,  carmine,  and  gold,  instead  of  being  the 
sober  unriddler  of  the  world's  problems.  Since  that 
time  the  house  of  Fr.  Eugen  Kohler,  to  which  we 
owe  the  fine  new  edition  of  Naumann's  classic 
work  on  birds,  with  its  coloured  plates,  has  under- 
taken to  publish  Haeckel's  water-colours,  as 
^^  Travel  Pictures,"  in  a  splendid  and  monu- 
mental work. 

During  the  year  in  Italy  all  these  gifts  were 
employed  together.  Italy  was  exactly  the  land  for 
Haeckel's  temperament,  with  its  mixture  of  lofty 
classic  elements  and  natural  beauty   and   simple. 


THE    RADIOLARIA  S5 

naive  unpretentiousness.  For  the  first  time  he 
felt  that  he  was  a  cosmopolitan  student.  He  had 
never  been  a  devotee  of  the  student's  beer-feasts. 
He  had  no  need  of  alcoholic  stimulant.  Gegen- 
baur  of  Wiirtzburg,  the  insatiable  smoker,  once 
said  to  him  in  joke,  "If  you  would  only  smoke, 
we  might  make  something  out  of  you."  It  was 
done,  in  any  case.  His  personal  inclinations  were 
in  his  favour  :  an  illimitable  love  of  travel,  good 
spirits  that  rose  in  proportion  to  the  absurdity  of 
his  accommodation,  and  a  simple  delight  in  every- 
thing human  that  enabled  him  to  talk  and  travel 
with  the  humblest  as  if  they  were  his  equals.  He 
spent  a  night  with  a  young  worker  in  a  haystack, 
and  when  he  was  asked  what  he  was,  he  pointed 
to  his  paint-box  and  brush :  ''  House-painter." 
**I  thought  so  when  I  saw  you,"  said  the  youth, 
and  he  asked  Haeckel  to  start  a  workshop  together 
with  him.  Italy  was  the  ideal  land  for  a  visitor 
of  that  type.  There  was  no  part  of  the  world 
from  which  he  was  so  pleased  to  receive  re- 
cognition in  his  years  of  fame  as  Italy ;  and  he 
received  it  in  abundance,  for  the  appreciation 
was  mutual. 

I  will  add  a  page  here  that  was  supplied  for  the 
present  work  by  a  friendly  hand,  a  man  who  is  as 
well  known  to  thousands  as  Haeckel  himself — 
Hermann  Allmers,  "the  poet  of  the  fens,  chief  of 
Frisia,  and  splendid  fellow,"  as  Haeckel  has  called 
him.  He  died  in  the  spring  of  1902  at  an  advanced 
age.  He  met  Haeckel  in  Italy,  and  tells  the  story 
in  his  verse   and  prose.     Forty  years  after  their 


86  HAECKEL 

meeting  he  wrote  me  that  Haeckel  was  *'the  finest 
man  he  ever  met." 

''TO   ERNST   HAECKEL. 

Dost  thou  remember  the  magic  night, 

A  night  I  never  cease  to  see, 

That  brought  us  both  to  Ischia? 

How  smooth  the  boat  sailed  gently  in, 

How  silent  was  the  great  broad  bay 

Unutterably  noble  and  sublime, 

In  all  its  star-lit  loveliness, 

As  sky  and  sea  met  in  embrace. 

With  fairy-light  the  waters  gleamed 

As  helm  ploughed  gently  through  the  wave, 

And  overhead  a  deep  red  glow 

Vesuvius  from  its  larva  poured. 

We  were  yet  strangers  at  the  time, 
One  hour  alone  had  each  the  other  seen, 
Yet  something  urged  us  both  to  speak — 
To  speak,  anon,  from  heart's  great  deeps. 
To  speak  of  all  we  held  of  worth, 
All  that  had  led  us  to  the  spot. 
All  the  fair  gifts  of  happy  fate. 
And  the  untoward  accidents  of  life; 
Of  distant  home,  of  fatherland. 
Of  the  full  days  of  beauty's  quest. 
Hand  clasped  in  hand  we  told  our  joy : 
Need  I  recall  it  from  the  mist  ? 

In  fine  of  thy  dear  love  thou  told'st 
And  sacred  silence  fell  on  thee. 
On  moved  the  barque  with  leisured  pace 
Across  the  deeper  silence  of  the  bay. 

Behind  us  vanished  Posilippo 

And  Baja's  gulf  and  Cape  Miseno. 

As  Procida  passed  slowly  by 

The  gentle  dawn  stole  o'er  the  night. 


THE    RADIOLARIA  87 

And  Epomeo's  head  was  lit, 
With  the  first  rays  of  new-born  sun, 
And  Ischia,  nobler  than  our  dreams, 
Uprose  before  our  wondering  eyes. 
Above,  mantled  in  its  own  loveliness, 
Calling  us  sweetly  from  the  bay 
Up  to  its  gentle,  vine-clothed  heights. 
Sat  radiant  Casamicciola. 

How  thou  and  I  the  glad  days  spent 
Thou  knowest  well.     And  now  ? 
Now  all  is  ruin  and  decay, 
A  ghastly  tomb.     We'll  let  it  rest. 
Think  rather  of  the  linked  lives 
We  spent,  and  the  whole  joy  of  earth, 
That  never  more  will  gladden  us 
While  sun  and  stars  gleam  overhead. 
What  was  it  opened  then  our  hearts  ? 
What  was  it  forged  the  golden  chain? 
It  was — thou  know'st  it  well,  comrade — 
The  sailing  on  that  magic  night." 

*^  Yes,  dear  reader,  whenever  I  let  these  verses 
and  their  splendid  truth  vibrate  again  in  my  soul 
— and  how  often  and  how  gladly  I  do  it  ! — I  have 
to  say,  Such  days  thou  shalt  never  know  again — 
such  happy  entrance  into  another's  heart.  And 
what  a  heart  it  was  that  bared  itself  to  me  with  all 
it  hid  and  would  soon  reveal !  We  were  in  a  cafe 
at  Naples,  a  copy  of  the  Allgemeine  Zeitung  lying 
between  him  and  me.  It  was  in  the  best  part  of 
the  spring  of  1859.  We  both  reached  for  it,  and 
told  our  names,  and  the  friendship  was  begun. 
*  You  must  excuse  me,'  Haeckel  said,  '  I  have  to 
go  to  Ischia  to-night  by  the  market-boat.'  '  To 
Ischia  ?     That's  good  :  I  am  going  there  myself. 


88  HAECKEL 

*  I  am  very  glad,  because  I  heard  I  was  to  be  alone. 
It  starts  at  nine  o'clock.'  That  was  all  that  had 
passed  between  us  before  the  crossing.  What  I 
have  described  in  the  above  verses  only  began 
when  we,  the  only  Germans  on  board,  made  our- 
selves comfortable  on  the  open  deck.  Before  the 
journey  was  over  we  were  intimate  friends,  and 
have  remained  friends  in  joy  and  sorrow  to  this 
moment,  though  the  mental  differences  between 
us  are  enormous.  However,  Casamicciola  brought 
us  together  in  a  wonderful  way.  We  had  common 
quarters,  and  always  went  out  together  for  walks 
or  botanising ;  we  were  never  separated  when  we 
painted  or  drew,  as  Haeckel  did  with  real  passion. 
On  the  third  morning,  when  we  found  some  rare 
thermal  plants  in  an  almost  broiling  meadow  and 
discovered  nearly  at  the  same  spot  the  ruins  of  an 
ancient  Koman  bath,  the  remarkable  coincidence 
affected  us  so  much  that  we  embraced  each  other 
joyously  and  dedicated  the  rest  of  our  flask  to  them. 
We  both  felt  that  we  could  not  do  otherwise.  So 
we  pleasantly  enjoyed  the  magnificent  scene  that 
lay  at  our  feet  from  the  height  of  Epomeo.  We 
stripped  off  nearly  the  whole  of  our  clothes,  and 
dipped,  in  almost  primitive  nakedness,  in  the  warm 
muddy  streams  that  shot  up  out  of  the  dark  depths 
under  a  growth  of  tendrils  and  ferns.  We  shouted 
out,  *  How  fine  it  is  in  these  warm  and  beauti- 
fully shaded  brooks !  How  delightful  it  must  be  in 
the  ravines  of  Atlas!  We  must  go  there.'  We 
spent  more  than  a  whole  day  in  the  most  marvel- 
lous ravines  of  Atlas,  though  neither  of  us  had 


THE    RADIOLARIA  89 

the  least  idea  of  them.  But  we  determined  to 
make  the  jom-ney  there,  and  sketched  it  out  in 
detail,  to  be  undertaken  as  soon  as  we  left  Italy. 
He  contracted  a  perfect  fever  for  travelling.  We 
were  four  weeks  in  Pagano's  excellent  inn  at  Capri 
with  a  few  artists,  and  he  completely  lost  himself 
with  delight.  He  became  intimate  with  the 
young  artists  ;  being  hitherto  surrounded  by  men 
of  scientific  interests,  he  had  avoided  them.  The 
intermediary  between  Haeckel  and  them  was 
myself.  I  liked  no  one  better  than  genial  artists. 
Now  Haeckel  was  seized  with  a  passion  for  painting 
landscapes  day  after  day.  He  was  especially 
interested  in  the  most  fantastically  shaped  rocks. 
On  the  other  hand,  he  neglected  his  marine 
animals,  and  did  not  return  to  them  entirely 
until  he  got  to  Messina,  where  he  devoted  him- 
self to  the  radiolaria,  which  were  destined  to  play 
so  important  a  part  in  his  work.  Darwin,  who  was 
soon  to  dominate  his  whole  thought,  had  little 
significance  for  him  at  that  time,  as  the  struggle 
for  life  had  not  yet  been  discovered.  We  rarely 
spoke  of  it,  but  talked  constantly  of  Johannes 
Miiller.  He  was  Haeckel's  ideal,  as  long  as  I 
kept  in  touch  with  him.  He  also  spoke  often  and 
generously  of  his  university  friends,  Dr.  W.  D. 
Focke,  who  was  his  special  botanical  comrade.  Dr. 
Dreyer  and  Dr.  Strube,  who  were  his  chief  friends 
at  the  university  at  Wiirtzburg.  The  ordinary 
life  and  pleasures  of  the  student,  and  their  heavy 
beer-drinking,  were  a  torture  to  him  ;  he  avoided 
them  as  much  as   possible.     Very  often  I  could 


90  HAECKEL 

not  understand  how  it  was  that  I  brought  him 
to  the  highest  pitch  of  gaiety,  whereas  on  all  his 
earlier  travels,  especially  when  botany  was  still 
his  favourite  science,  he  would,  after  the  common 
meal,  withdraw  quietly  with  his  books  and  plants 
to  the  solitude  of  his  own  room.  Yet  he  could 
be  the  gayest  of  all.  In  fact,  his  hearty  and 
wonderful  laugh,  in  all  notes  up  to  the  very 
highest,  rings  over  and  over  again  in  the  memory 
of  any  man  who  has  once  heard  it ;  it  is  the  frank 
laughter  of  a  glad  human  heart.  And  whoever  has 
seen  the  deep  earnestness  with  which  the  great 
scientist  threw  himself  into  the  study  of  the 
most  arduous  problems  would  be  astounded  to 
hear  it." 

•  •  •  •  • 

^  The  Strait  of  Messina  is  the  pearl  of  Italy.  In 
my  opinion  it  is  finer  than  Naples.  The  huge 
volcano  and  the  deep  blue  strip  of  water,  that 
seems  to  be  confined  between  the  white  coasts  like 
some  fabulous  giant-stream,  give  a  feeling  of 
sublimity  beside  which  the  Bay  of  Naples  seems 
but  an  idyll  in  the  memory.  The  colours  are 
more  vivid ;  you  think  you  would  catch  hold  of  the 
blue  bodily  if  you  put  your  hand  in  the  water. 
It  is  a  land  of  ancient  myths.  The  Cyclops 
hammer  their  work  in  Etna.  Scylla  and  Charybdis 
lurk  in  the  Strait.  Once,  in  the  days  of  Homer, 
when  the  sun  of  civilisation  still  lay  on  a  corner  of 
Asia,  a  dim  Miinchhausen-world  was  lived  here, 
such  as  we  find  to-day  in  the  heart  of  Africa  or 
New   Guinea.      But    times   changed.      Zoologists 


THE    RADIOLARIA  91 

came  and  fished  with  Miiller-nets  for  tiny  trans- 
parent sea-creatures  in  the  gentle  periodic 
currents,  that  may  once  have  given  rise  to  the 
legend  of  Scylla  and  Charybdis.  '  There  is  no  place 
more  favourable  for  the  purpose  than  the  harbour 
of  Messina.  The  basin  is  open  only  at  one  spot, 
towards  the  north.  The  westerly  wind  is  cut 
off  from  the  town  by  the  mountains,  and  can  do 
no  harm.  Even  the  detested  southern  wind,  the 
sirocco,  that  lashes  the  Strait  till  it  is  white 
with  foam,  cannot  enter.  There  is  only  the 
north  wind  that  drives  the  water  into  the 
basin.  The  waves  it  brings  in  are  full  of  millions 
of  sea-animals,  which  accumulate  in  the  cul-de- 
sac  of  the  harbour.  In  fact,  if  the  sirocco  has 
previously  been  blowing  in  the  Strait  and 
gathered  great  swarms  of  animals  from  the 
southern  parts  at  the  mouth  of  the  harbour,  and 
then  the  north  wind  drives  them  all  inside,  the 
whole  of  the  water  seems  to  be  alive  with  them.  If 
you  dip  a  glass  in  it,  you  do  not  get  water,  but 
a  sort  of  "  animal  stew,"  the  living  things  making 
up  more  of  the  bulk  than  the  fluid — little  crystal- 
line creatures,  medusae,  salpae,  Crustacea,  vermalia, 
and  others  of  many  kinds. 

It  was  at  this  classic  spot  that  Haeckel  would 
lay  the  foundation  of  his  fame  as  a  zoologist,  by 
the  study  of  a  group  of  minute  creatures  that 
appealed  equally  to  the  aesthetic  sense  by  the 
mysterious  beauty  of  their  forms.  There  can  be 
little  doubt  that  we  can  see  in  this,  not  only  a  fortu- 
nate accident,  but  also  the  play   of  some  hidden 


92  HAECKEL 

affinity.  In  such  a  spot  the  artist  in  Haeckel 
could  compromise  with  the  zoologist.  His  aesthetic 
nature  had  revelled  in  landscape,  peasantry,  and 
song.  Now  the  Miiller-net  and  the  microscope 
revealed  a  new  world  of  hidden  beauty  that  none 
had  appreciated  before  him.  In  devoting  himself 
to  it  he  was  still  half  engrossed  in  his  quest  of 
beauty;  but  the  other  half  of  him  was  rapidly 
attaining  a  mastery  of  serious  zoology.) 

It  is  a  common  belief  that  aesthetic  appreciation 
ceases  as  soon  as  we  sit  down  to  the  microscope. 
There  is  the  magnificent  blue  Strait  of  Messina. 
Your  eye,  embracing  its  whole  length,  drinks  in 
its  beauty  in  deep  draughts.  What  will  your 
microscope  make  of  it  ?  Its  field  can  only  take 
in  a  single  drop  of  water,  and  this  does  not  grow 
more  blue  when  you  thus  analyse  it.  Let  science 
go  further  afield  :  this  is  the  land  of  beauty.  All 
those  doctrines  of  histology,  embryology,  and  so 
on,  built  on  the  microscope,  are  thought  to  be 
poles  removed  from  aesthetic  enjoyment.  They 
dissolve  everything — man's  soft,  white  skin,  the 
perfumed  leaf  of  the  rose,  the  bright  wing  of  the 
butterfly — into  **  cells. '  It  is  mere  ignorance  to 
talk  in  this  way.  Nature's  beauty  is  by  no  means 
so  thin  a  covering  that  the  microscope  must 
at  once  pierce  through  it.  Eather  does  it  reveal 
to  us  in  incalculable  wealth  a  whole  firmament 
of  new  stars,  a  new  world  of  beauties,  if  we 
choose  the  right  way  to  see  them.  Haeckel 
did  choose  the  right  way. 

At    his    very   first    dips    into    the    harbour    of 


THE    RADIOLARIA  93 

Messina,  in  October,  1859,  he  got  certain  curious 
lumps  and  strips  of  jelly.  The  local  fishermen 
called  them  ovi  di  mare  (sea-eggs).  It  was,  in 
fact,  natural  enough  to  regard  these  inert  creatures 
as  strings  of  mollusc-eggs,  when  their  real  nature 
was  unknown.  But  our  young  student  already 
knew  what  they  were.  They  were  social  radio- 
laria. 

The  word  '' radiolarium,"  from  radius  (a  ray), 
means  a  raying  or  radiating  animal.  It  is  diffi- 
cult for  the  inexpert  to  imagine  the  structure 
of  one  of  these  creatures.  He  must  first  put 
entirely  on  one  side  all  the  features  that  he 
usually  associates  with  an  '^animal."  The  radio- 
larian  lives,  moves,  has  sensations,  breathes,  eats, 
and  reproduces,  but  in  a  totally  different  way 
from  that  we  are  accustomed  to  see.  Its  body 
consists  essentially  of  a  particle  of  homogeneous 
living  matter.  There  is  merely  a  firmer  nucleus 
in  the  centre  of  it,  and  the  soft  gelatinous  matter 
is  thickened  at  the  surface  to  form  a  kind  of 
capsule.  Otherwise  there  is  no  trace  of  any 
real  "  organ."  The  little  blob  of  jelly  eats — 
but  it  has  no  stomach ;  it  eats  with  its  whole 
body,  its  soft,  jelly-like  substance  closing  entirely 
over  particles  of  food  and  absorbing  them.  It 
breathes  (with  the  animal  type  of  respiration) — 
but  it  has  neither  lungs  nor  gills ;  the  whole 
body  takes  in  oxygen  and  gives  off  carbonic  acid. 
It  swims  about — yet  it  has  neither  legs  nor  fins ; 
the  pulpy  mass  of  its  body  flows,  when  it  is 
necessary,  into  a  crown  of  streamers  or  loose  pro- 


94  HAECKEL 

cesses,  that  keep  the  body  neatly  balanced ;  when 
they  are  no  longer  required,  they  sink  back  into 
the  gelatinous  mass.  We  study  the  "histology" 
of  these  curious  social-living  creatures  under  a 
powerful  microscope.  As  I  have  explained,  the 
tissues  and  organs  of  the  higher  animals  break 
up  under  the  microscope  into  a  most  ingeniously 
constructed  network  of  tiny  living  gelatinous 
corpuscles  with  a  nucleus  in  the  centre — the  cells. 
But  our  radiolarian  has  no  more  got  tissues 
composed  of  cells  than  it  has  stomach  or  lungs 
or  any  other  organ.  It  is  merely  a  single  cell 
with  a  nucleus  and  a  jelly-like  body.  Yet  in 
this  case  the  single  cell  is  a  whole  individual, 
a  complete  animal,  that  lives,  moves,  eats, 
breathes,  and  so  on.  The  radiolarian  is,  in  com- 
parison with  the  splendid  cell-tapestry  of  the 
higher  animals,  a  poor  little  atom  of  life.  It 
must  be  put  deep  down  in  the  animal  series. 
What  a  vast  distance  !  Above  is  man,  built  of 
myriads  of  cells  woven  into  the  most  ingenious 
tissues  and  the  most  perfect  organs  for  each 
function  of  life ;  below  we  have  the  radiolarian, 
in  which  a  single  cell  must  discharge  all  the 
vital  functions,  because  its  whole  body  is  merely 
one  cell.  But  there  is  another  wonder.  This 
tiny  particle  of  living  slime,  floating  in  the  blue 
waves  at  Messina,  hardly  more  visible  than  a 
drop  of  spittle,  has  a  most  remarkable  quality. 
It  is  able  to  assimilate  a  kind  of  matter  that 
the  chemist  calls  silicious  (flinty)  matter — the 
stuff  that  forms,  when  it  is  crystallised  in  chemical 


A  Radiolarian. 
(Lychnaspis  miranda.) 


To  f  lice  p.  94. 


THE    RADIOLARIA  95 

purity,  the  well-known  rock-crystal.  This  flint 
matter  (and  sometimes  a  similar  substance)  is 
then  exuded  again  by  the  radiolarian — no  one 
knows  quite  how — from  its  gelatinous  body,  and 
built  into  so  beautiful  a  form  that  even  a  child 
will  clap  its  hands  and  cry,  "  How  lovely !  "  when 
it  sees  it  through  the  microscope.  We  may  put 
it  that  the  radiolarian  forms  a  coat  of  mail  for 
itself  from  this  siliceous  matter :  we  may  at 
the  same  time  call  it  a  float  or  buoy.  The  hard 
flinty  structure  serves  to  keep  it  balanced  when 
it  is  swimming,  just  as  when  a  loose  piece  of 
jelly  attaches  itself  to  a  cork  disk.  Thus  a  round 
trellis-work  shell  is  formed  about  the  animal, 
and  through  the  apertures  it  thrusts  gelatinous 
processes  that  act  as  oars,  and  can  be  put  forth 
or  drawn  in  at  will ;  outside  this  shell,  again,  may 
be  all  sorts  of  structures,  such  as  zigzag  shaped 
rods,  radiating  stars,  bundles  of  streamers,  and 
so  on.  It  is  a  most  wonderful  sight.  It  is  as 
if  each  class  of  these  beings  had  its  private  taste, 
and,  in  virtue  of  a  kind  of  tradition,  built  a  dif- 
ferent type  of  flinty  skeleton  from  all  the  others. 
Here  begins  the  peculiar  artistic  wizardry  of  these 
tiny  and  lowly  creatures,  that  lifts  them  at  once 
high  up  in  the  scale  of  animated  natural  objects 
with  a  great  display  of  beauty.  We  find  every 
possible  variation  of  ornament  within  the  limits 
of  the  particular  type :  an  infinite  number  of 
crystalline  and  superb  variations  on  the  theme 
of  trellis-work,  stars,  radiating  shields,  crosses, 
and  halberds.     They  give  an  impression  at  once 


96  HAECKEL 

of  human  art- work,  for  there  is  nothing  else  in  the 
whole  of  nature  with  which  we  may  compare  them. 
The  radiolarian,  therefore,  is  an  animal  of  the 
utmost  simplicity  of  bodily  frame  that,  by  some 
force  or  other,  creates  the  highest  and  most 
varied  beauty  that  we  find  anywhere  in  nature, 
living  or  dead,  below  the  level  of  human  art. 

Haeckel's  good  genius  brought  him  to  these  radio- 
laria.  Until  the  winter  of  1859-1860  he  knew  very 
little  about  them.  When  a  radiolarian  dies  its 
soft  body  naturally  'melts  away  and  perishes. 
But  the  art-work  of  its  life,  the  star  or  shield  of 
flinty  matter,  remains ;  it  either  sinks  to  the  bottom 
or  is  washed  ashore,  where  numbers  of  them  may 
accumulate.  If  a  pinch  of  mud  or  sand  from  the 
shore  is  put  under  the  microscope  the  observer  will 
see  lovely  artistic  fragments,  and  ask  what  is  the 
meaning  of  the  miracle.  Ehrenberg,  the  venerable 
Berlin  micros copist,  was  the  first  to  have  the  ex- 
perience. He  was  not  in  the  habit  of  going  to  the 
sea  himself,  but  had  specimens  sent  to  him,  and 
found  in  them  shells  of  the  radiolaria.  Though 
they  were  so  small,  their  artistic  quality  seemed 
to  him  to  be  so  great  that  he  assumed  they 
were  built  by  very  advanced  animals  of  the  star- 
fish or  sea-urchin  type.  That  there  were  uni- 
cellular protozoa  with  a  simple  gelatinous  body 
and  no  higher  organs  he  stoutly  denied,  and  he 
had  the  support  of  his  leading  contemporaries 
everywhere.  But  his  colleague,  Johannes  Miiller, 
who  fished  in  the  sea  himself,  came  across  living 
specimens  in  the  Mediterranean  in  the  first  half 


THE    RADIOLARIA  97 

of  the  fifties.  It  appeared  that  they  were  really 
very  lowly  animals  at  least.  Miiller  christened 
them  the  radiolaria,  classified  the  fifty  species 
that  he  discovered,  and  at  his  death  left  the 
subject  well  prepared  for  the  first  student  who 
should  go  more  fully  into  it.  His  final  work  on 
them  did  not  appear  until  after  his  death,  in 
1858,  the  sunset-glow  of  his  brilliant  scientific 
career.  Perhaps  he  would  have  gone  more  deeply 
into  the  mysteries  he  had  encountered  but  for  a 
curious  accident.  Just  as  he  discovered  the  sub- 
ject, two  years  before  his  death,  he  had  a  terrible 
experience.  The  ship  in  which  he  was  returning 
from  a  holiday  in  Norway  was  wrecked.  A 
favourite  pupil  of  his  was  drowned,  and  he  himself 
narrowly  escaped  by  swimming  to  land.  After  that 
he  could  not  be  induced  to  enter  a  boat  during  his 
last  trips  to  the  sea,  and  so  the  thorough  study  of 
these  most  graceful  inhabitants  of  the  Mediter- 
ranean was  abandoned.  But  when  Haeckel  fished 
at  Villefranche  with  KolHker  of  Wiirtzburg,  and 
Miiller  was  at  Nice,  he  was  urged  by  the  master,  as 
a  kind  of  testamentary  injunction,  that  ^'  something 
might  be  done  "  with  the  radiolaria.  And  when  he 
fished  up  a  pretty  crown  of  socially-united  radio- 
laria on  first  rowing  over  the  Messina  harbour,  he 
thought  it  would  be  a  grateful  ofiering  to  the 
memory  of  the  dead  hero  of  his  zoological  dreams 
to  continue  the  study  of  the  radiolaria.  At  once 
he  seemed  to  enter  the  treasure-house  of  a  fairy 
tale.  When  the  campaign  was  ended  in  the  Mes- 
sina harbour  in  April,  1860,  he  had  discovered  no 

7 


98  HAECKEL 

less  than  144  new  species,  and  each  species  proved 
a  fresh  master  of  decorative  art.  At  the  same 
time  he  studied  the  nature  of  the  gelatinous  body. 
Ehrenberg's  theory  was  destroyed  for  ever.  Grant- 
ing that  there  were  certain  difficulties  (since 
explained  away)  in  the  way  of  admitting  the  exist- 
ence of  real  unicellular  creatures,  he  at  all  events 
gathered  an  enormous  amount  of  new  and  helpful 
information  as  to  the  nature  of  these  soft,  almost 
organless  beings  and  of  the  slimy  living  matter 
(called  sarcode  or  protoplasm)  of  which  they  were 
composed.  His  mind  matured  rapidly  in  these 
quiet  days  at  Messina,  while  his  aesthetic  nature 
was  plunged  in  admiration  of  the  beauty  of  the 
siliceous  coats.  The  last  scruple  with  regard  to 
the  old  story  of  creation  fell  from  him  like  the 
covering  of  a  pupa.  If  a  naked  bit  of  slime  like 
the  radiolarian  could  form  from  its  body  this 
glorious  artistic  structure,  why  may  not  man  also, 
as  he  paints  his  pictures  under  the  glow  of  Italy's 
colour,  be  merely  a  natural  being,  of  like  texture  to 
the  radiolarian  ?  And  if  this  radiolarian  had  in  its 
life  built  up  the  crystalline,  rhythmic  structure,  why 
may  there  not  be  merely  a  diSerence  of  degree,  not 
of  kind,  between  the  '^  dead "  crystal  and  the 
^*  living  "  radiolarian  ? 

In  May,  1860,  Haeckel  returned  from  Messina 
to  Berlin.  He  brought  with  him  splendid  draw- 
ings of  the  perishable  body  of  his  treasures, 
numbers  of  prepared  specimens,  and  whole  bottles 
full  of  their  imperishable  shells.  On  the  17th  of 
September,    1860,  he  made    the    first    communi- 


THE    RADIOLAKIA  .  99 

cation  of  his  discoveries  to  his  colleagues  in  the 
zoological  section  of  the  Scientific  Congress  at 
Konigsberg.  Virchow  was  amongst  his  admiring 
audience.  On  the  13th  and  the  20th  of  December 
in  the  same  year  Peters  read  a  short  account  in 
the  Berlin  Academy  of  Science  that  drew  more 
general  attention.  He  set  to  work  on  a  fine 
monograph,  with  splendid  plates  and  with  all  his 
conclusions  in  the  text.  Before  it  was  finished, 
however,  he  had  a  number  of  personal  experiences 
and  changes  of  mind.  Gegenbaur  had  in  the 
meantime  been  appointed  Professor  of  Anatomy 
at  Jena.  Before  he  started  for  Italy,  Haeckel 
had  visited  his  friend  at  Jena  during  the  cele- 
bration of  the  third  centenary  of  the  university. 
"We  spent  a  very  happy  time  there,"  Haeckel 
wrote  afterwards,  "enjoying  the  beautiful  pros- 
pect (from  the  heights  of  the  Saale  valley)  and 
the  Thuringian  beef-sausages."  Now  there  were 
more  serious  things  to  discuss.  Gegenbaur's  lot 
had  once  seemed  to  him  a  kind  of  model.  Now 
a  part  of  it  was  fulfilled  :  he  had  been  to  Messina. 
Meantime  Gegenbaur  had  advanced  a  station. 
Haeckel  wanted  to  follow  him,  and  get  a  position 
at  Jena.  There  was  no  such  thing  as  a  pro- 
fessorship of  zoology  or  a  zoological  institute 
there,  but  all  that  might — nay,  must — be  changed 
some  day.  What  Gegenbaur  was  doing  left 
plenty  of  room  for  another  chair  to  be  set  up. 
And  to  be  with  his  best  friend  1 

In  March,  1861,  Haeckel  completed  the  Disser- 
tatio  pro    venia  legendi    at    Jena    that    he    had 


100  HAECKEL 

quickly  decided  on.  It  dealt,  of  course,  with 
his  new  field :  the  limit  and  the  system  of  the 
animal  group  to  which  the  radiolaria  belonged, 
the  rhizopods.  He  was  immediately  appointed 
private  teacher  at  Jena,  and  found  himself  in 
the  lovely  valley  of  the  Saale,  beneath  the  moun- 
tain about  whose  summit  the  red  rays  lingered. 
He  had  been  drawn  from  Berlin  to  Messina  to 
find  a  home — a  home  for  ever — in  the  increasing 
stress. 

In  the  following  year,  1862,  the  official  position 
of  Extraordinary  Professor  of  Zoology  was  created, 
and  this  brought  him  close,  even  externally,  to 
Gegenbaur.  Everything  was,  it  is  true,  in  a 
very  primitive  condition  at  first.  In  August  he 
married  Anna  Sethe — a  sunny  dream  of  fresh 
young  happiness.  In  the  same  year  he  published 
his  Monograph  on  the  Badiolaria^  a  huge  folio 
volume  with  thirty-five  remarkably  good  copper- 
plates, such  as  our  more  rational  but  slighter 
technical  methods  no  longer  dare  produce.  Wa- 
genschieber,  of  Berlin,  the  last  of  the  fine  scien- 
tific copper  etchers,  had  been  in  constant  personal 
touch  with  Haeckel,  and  reproduced  his  original 
drawings  in  masterly  style.  With  this  work 
Haeckel  was  fully  established  in  his  position  as 
a  professional  zoologist.  It  is  still  one  of  the 
finest  monographs  that  was  issued  in  the  nine- 
teenth century ;  from  the  literary  point  of  view, 
also,  it  was  one  of  the  purest  and  most  lucid 
works  of  its  kind,  full  of  great  and  earnest 
thoughts,   and   without   any  bitterness — a    work, 


THE    RADIOLARIA  101 

perhaps,  that  Haeckel  has  not  since  equalled.  The 
most  influential  and  official  scientists  of  the  time 
had  to  respect  this  work  :  possibly  with  the  sole 
exception  of  the  aged  Ehrenberg,  to  whom  it  dealt 
a  deadly  blow  in  this  department,  without,  of 
course,  undervaluing  his  great  antecedent  services. 
He  never  even  studied  it  sufficiently  to  be  able  to 
quote  the  title  of  it  correctly. 

Nevertheless,  a  flame  broke  out  at  one  spot  in 
this  monograph.  In  a  very  short  time  Haeckel's 
whole  figure  would  stand  out  in  the  red  reflection 
of  its  glow — a  figure  really  great,  solitary,  suddenly 
deserted  by  all  the  bewigged  and  powdered 
professors — Haeckel  himself,  as  the  world  has 
come  to  know  him. 


CHAPTEE  IV 


DABWIN 


WE  still  celebrate,  at  a  distance  of  centuries, 
the  return  of  the  birthday  of  great 
men.  In  reality  it  is  a  mistake.  We  ought  to 
celebrate  the  hour  when  not  merely  life,  but  the 
idea  of  their  life^  quickened  them.  That  is  the 
really  important  birth  that  calls  for  commemo- 
ration. Luther's  real  birthday  was  when  he 
nailed  his  theses  to  the  church  door.  Then  was 
born  the  Luther  that  belongs  to  the  world.  Over 
the  world- cradle  of  Columbus  shines,  not  the 
trivial  and  evanescent  planet  given  in  his  horo- 
scope, but  the  little  red  flickering  star  of  Guana- 
hani,  the  light  that  he  saw  from  the  shore  on  the 
night  before  he  landed  on  an  island  of  the  New 
World. 

Life  is  a  voyage  of  discovery  to  the  man  who 
passes  through  it.  He  looks  out  with  his  child- 
eyes  and  discovers  the  world — at  the  bottom, 
discovers  only  himself.  But  one  day  a  greater 
veil  is  torn  from  before  his  self.  Genius,  the 
greater  I,  stirs  within  him  like  the  butterfly  in 
its    narrow   pupa-case.     For    the   world   at   large 


102 


DARWIN  103 

that  is  the  hour  when  the  great  man  is  born 
who  will  leave  his  mark  on  it. 

Haeckel's  biography  only  begins  on  a  certain 
day,  if  we  look  at  it  rightly  and  broadly.  Until 
that  day  he  is  merely  a  young  man,  an  outgrowth 
from  a  rich  old  civilisation :  a  young  man  who 
has  felt  in  him  a  struggle  between  artistic  and 
scientific  tendencies,  like  so  many :  who  has 
vacillated  between  the  choice  of  a  ^'paying  pro- 
fession" and  research  for  its  own  sake,  and  has 
decided  for  the  former,  like  so  many  :  who  has 
chosen  zoology,  and  begun  to  work  .hard  on 
professional  lines  at  his  science :  and  who  has 
been  told  prophetically  that  he  will  one  day  do 
something,  though  along  a  line  where  much  has 
been  done  already.  In  the  whole  of  this  develop- 
ment we  have  as  yet  no  indication  of  the  real 
tenor  of  his  life. 

It  comes  first  with  the  name  of  Darwin.  The 
arabesque  of  a  very  different  life  begins  to  blend 
with  that  of  his  own. 

In  the  February  of  the  year  in  which  Haeckel 
was  born  (1834),  twenty-eight  years  before  the 
point  we  have  arrived  at,  Charles  Darwin  was 
on  a  scientific  expedition  to  South  America.  There 
is  a  romantic  element  in  the  earlier  story  of  this 
journey.  The  naked  Fuegians  had  stolen  a  boat 
from  an  English  Government  ship  that  was  en- 
gaged in  making  geographical  measurements, 
towards  the  close  of  the  twenties,  on  the  wild 
coast  of  Tierra  del  Fuego.  FitzKoy,  the  captain, 
arrested  a  few  of  the  natives,  brought  them  on 


104  HAECKEL 

board  as  hostages,  and  in  the  end  took  them  with 
him  to  England.  They  were  to  be  instructed 
in  morahty  and  Christianity  and  then  taken  back 
to  their  people,  in  order  to  introduce  these  elements 
of  civilisation,  for  the  advantage  of  shipwrecked 
sailors  or  distressed  travellers  who  might  fall  in 
with  them.  We  feel  a  breath  of  the  spirit  of 
Rousseau  in  it.  As  a  fact  nothing  came  of  the 
device.  The  good  Fuegians  were  clothed  and 
improved  by  civilised  folk  for  a  year  or  two, 
returned  home,  immediately  abandoned  their 
trousers  and  their  Christianity,  and  remained 
naked  savages.  But  the  bringing  home  of  these 
hostages  led,  in  the  early  thirties,  to  a  new 
expedition  of  FitzRoy  to  Tierra  del  Fuego.  The 
Government  directed  him  to  draw  up  further 
charts,  and  he  looked  about  for  a  man  of  science 
to  accompany  him. 

The  man  proved  to  be  Charles  Darwin,  then 
in  his  twenty-second  year. 

The  son  of  a  prosperous  provincial  physician, 
he  had  begun  to  study  medicine  without  much 
success,  and  was  transferred  to  theology,  only 
to  find  after  three  years  of  study  that  he  was 
as  little  fitted  to  become  a  country  clergyman 
as  a  country  doctor.  He  had  an  unconquerable 
love  of  scientific  investigation.  He  collected  all 
kinds  of  things,  and  desired  to  travel,  without 
any  very  clear  idea  of  his  destiny.  A  chance 
introduction  came  to  the  young  man  as  a  god- 
send, and  he  joined  FitzRoy's  expedition  to 
South  America.     Once  more,  it  was  this  journey 


DARWIN  105 

* 

that  made  him  ^'Darwin,"  the  mighty  intellectual 
force  in  the  nineteenth  century. 

Darwin  found  an  idea  in  South  America.  You 
have  to  examine  it  very  closely  to  appreciate  it 
clearly.  Let  us  recapitulate  very  briefly  the 
hundred  years  of  zoology  and  botany  that  had 
gone  before. 

In  the  eighteenth  century  Linn6  drew  up,  for  the 
first  time,  a  great  catalogue  of  plant  and  animal 
species.  Each  species  had  a  solid  Latin  name, 
and  was  provided  with  its  particular  label,  by 
which  every  representative  of  the  species  could 
be  recognised  at  once.  Then  the  species  were 
bracketed  together  in  larger  groups,  and  a  general 
system  was  formed.  It  was  an  immense  scientific 
advance,  and  is  still  generally  appreciated  as  such. 
But  we  have  to  make  one  reserve.  It  is  not  man 
that  separates  things ;  nature,  or  rather  God  who 
created  nature,  has  already  distinguished  them. 
In  this  respect  zoology  and  botany  are  of  God. 
The  various  species  of  plants  and  animals  are  some- 
thing firmly  established  by  God.  Take  the  polar 
bear,  the  hippopotamus,  the  girafie,  or  a  particular 
species  of  palm,  or  vine,  or  rose.  There  they  are, 
and  all  that  man  has  to  do  is  to  learn  their 
specific  characters  in  order  to  determine  and 
name  them. 

Behind  all  this  we  really  have  the  ancient  idea 
of  the  Mosaic  story  of  creation.  God  made  the 
animals  and  plants,  species  by  species,  put  them  in 
their  places,  and  said  to  man,  ^^Name  them  as 
you  think  fit,  classify  them,  putting  the  like  to- 


106  HAECKEL 

gether  and  separating  the  unlike."  So  God  spake 
to  Adam  when  he  stood  before  him,  naked  as  a 
Fuegian.  Linn6  comes  on  the  scene  some  six 
thousand  years  afterwards  to  set  about  this  naming 
and  arranging  in  earnest.  But  that  does  not  make 
much  difference.  There  are  the  species  created  by 
God.  They  have  ceaselessly  reproduced  them- 
selves since  the  days  of  Paradise  according  to  the 
command  to  increase  and  multiply,  each  one  in  its 
own  kind,  so  that  the  polar  bear  has  only  begotten 
polar  bears,  the  giraffe  giraffes,  the  hippopotamus 
hippopotami.  Thus,  in  spite  of  death,  the  primitive 
Paradise  is  still  there,  and  Linne,  the  official  pro- 
fessor at  Upsala,  with  his  venerable  wig  and 
embroidered  coat,  can  take  up  the  work  of  the 
naked  Adam  with  a  good  conscience,  and  finish 
what  the  patriarch  had  not  been  able  to  do. 

Linn6  died  in  1778  (about  the  time  when  Goethe 
was  beginning  the  Ipliigenia  and  Wilhelm  Meister) 
in  the  full  fame  of  all  these  achievements  and  all 
his  hypotheses  from  the  giraffe  to  God.  Fifty 
years  elapsed  between  this  and  Darwin's  voyage ; 
but  in  those  fifty  years  the  following  process  is 
accomplished : — 

An  increasing  number  of  bones  and  other  relics 
of  animal  species,  that  exist  no  longer,  were  dug 
out  of  the  earth.  In  South  America  the  skeleton 
was  found  of  a  giant-sloth,  the  megatherium,  the 
remains  of  a  kind  of  animal,  larger  than  the 
elephant,  that  no  traveller  could  find  living  in  the 
country.  The  famous  mammoth-corpse  came  to 
light  in  the  ice   of   Siberia;  an  entirely   strange 


DARWIN  107 

elephant  with  curved  tusks  and  a  red  woolly  coat. 
Ichthyosauri  were  found  in  the  rocks  in  England, 
and  so  on.  All  these  ^*  extinct  "  species  had  to  be 
named  and  arranged  in  the  system.  A  special 
scientific  indication  was  put  on  them,  which 
means  ^*  extinct."  But  this  was  not  enough  for 
thought — which  cannot  be  ^'  entirely  dispensed 
with,"  as  some  one  well  said,  even  in  exact 
science. 

Where  did  these  extinct  species  come  from  ? 
What  is  their  relation  to  the  Creator  ?  Were  they 
created  long  ago  in  Paradise  with  the  others,  and 
afterwards  conveyed  in  the  ark,  only  to  disappear 
in  the  course  of  time?  And  what  was  the  cause 
of  their  disappearance  ?  Must  we  conclude  that 
part  of  what  Adam  saw  was  not  available  for  Linne 
and  his  pupils  ?  These  four  remains,  a  few  bones 
here  and  there,  do  not  tell  us  much  about  them. 

Therefore,  species  may  perish  :  many  of  them 
have  perished. 

There  was  something  new  in  this,  something 
that  obscured  the  clear  lines  of  earlier  science. 
However,  a  way  of  escape  was  found.  It  was 
claimed  that  these  grotesque  monsters — ichthyo- 
sauri, megatheria,  mammoths,  &c. — represent  an 
earlier  creation,  with  which  Adam  had  nothing  to 
do.  Cuvier  developed  the  theory  in  his  grandiose 
way  in  1812.  Before  the  creation  of  the  animal 
and  plant  species  that  Adam  found  in  Paradise 
there  was  a  long  series  of  periods  in  the  history  of 
the  earth,  each  of  which  had  its  own  animal  and 
plant  population.     It  was  in  one  of  these  periods 


108  HAECKEL 

that  the  forests  grew  which  we  find  fossilised  in  our 
coal.  In  another  the  ichthyosauri,  gigantic  lizards, 
filled  the  ocean.  In  a  third  the  hideous  mega- 
therium dragged  along  its  huge  frame,  and  so  on. 
It  is  true  that  there  is  nothing  in  the  Bible  about 
these  ancient  and  extinct  periods ;  but  the  Mosaic 
verses  move  quickly — they  press  on  to  come  to  man. 
The  repeated  creations  of  the  animal  and  plant 
worlds  are  summed  up  in  a  single  one.  We  must 
read  something  between  the  lines. 

Apart  from  that,  everything  is  clear.  Hence 
the  ancient  species  were  made  fixed,  solid,  and 
unchangeable  by  God  just  like  the  later  species 
that  Adam  found  in  Paradise,  and  that  still  exist. 
Without  the  will  of  God  they  could  no  more  have 
died  out  than  the  actual  ones  ;  and  there  were  no 
human  beings  there  to  destroy  them.  But  the 
divine  action  intervened.  At  the  end  of  each  of 
these  old-world  periods  a  terrible  spectacle 
was  witnessed.  The  heavens  poured  out  their 
punishing  floods ;  the  seas  were  heated  to  steam 
by  fiery  masses  of  rock  that  were  summoned  by  the 
divine  power  from  the  bowels  of  the  earth.  In 
the  course  of  a  single  day  the  carboniferous  forests 
were  swallowed  up;  the  megatheria  disappeared, 
legs  uppermost,  like  flies  in  butter,  in  the  sand 
dunes  of  the  terrible  floods. 

The  might  of  the  creative  act  was  equalled  by 
the  might  of  the  destruction.  The  science  of  these 
vast  new  creations  and  divine  revolutions  before 
Adam's  birth  was  called  geology.  It  lived  in  peace 
with  Linne's  theory  of  fixed  species.     Its  parent, 


( 


DARWIN  109 

Cuvier,  was  so  great  a  genius  that  it  seemed  quite 
impossible  that  he  had  made  a  mistake.  Before 
twenty  years  were  out  he  was,  in  the  opinion  of 
a  contemporary  and  equally  able  geologist,  declared 
to  be  certainly  wrong  on  one  point. 

Lyell  wrote  a  magnificent  work  in  which  he 
proved,  from  the  point  of  view  of  scientific  geology, 
that  the  whole  story  of  these  terrible  revolutions 
was  a  fiction.  There  are  no  such  sharp  sections  in 
the  early  history  of  the  earth.  Everything  goes 
to  show  that  throughout  the  whole  period  of  the 
earth's  development  the  same  natural  laws  have 
been  at  work  as  we  find  to-day.  It  is  true  that  the 
relative  positions  of  sea  and  land,  hill  and  valley, 
forest  and  desert,  have  often  changed ;  but  very, 
very  slowly,  in  the  course  of  millions  of  years.  A 
single  drop  of  water,  constantly  falling,  will  hollow 
out  a  stone.  In  these  millions  of  years  the  water 
has  swept  away  rocks  here,  and  formed  new  land 
by  the  accumulation  of  sand  there.  In  these 
millions  of  years  the  sand  has  been  compressed 
into  the  gigantic  masses  that  tower  above  us  to-day 
as  sandstone  mountains  ;  they  are  formed  of  sand 
that  was  originally  laid  like  mud,  layer  by  layer,  on 
the  floor  of  the  ocean. 

It  was  all  very  plausible ;  it  seemed  to  picture 
an  eternal  flow  of  things  in  which  there  was  no 
room  for  God.  The  changes  in  the  earth's  surface 
were  easily  brought  about  without  catastrophes,  in 
the  course  of  incalculable  ages.  God  was  excluded 
from  geological  discussions  of  the  formation  of  hill 
and   dale.      And   when   it   was   fully   realised,   it 


110  HAECKEL 

brought  the  question  of  species  to  the  front  once 
more. 

It  was  impossible  to  retreat  simply  to  Linn6*s 
position.  Lyell  by  no  means  denied  Cuvier's 
various  periods  in  the  earth's  development  as  such. 
He  believed,  moreover,  that  the  plant  and  animal 
populations  were  different  in  these  epochs.  When 
the  forests  flourished  which  have  formed  the  mass 
of  our  coal-measures  there  were  no  ichthyosauri; 
when  the  ichthyosauri  came  there  were  no  longer 
any  carboniferous  forests  ;  with  the  ichthyosauri 
there  were  no  megatheria,  and  the  last  ichthyo- 
saurus was  extinct  before  the  megatheria  arrived. 
All  that  Lyell  rejected  was  the  great  divine  cata- 
strophes. But  when  these  were  abandoned,  it  was 
no  longer  possible  to  attribute  the  ^'end"  of  the 
extinct  species  to  a  divine  act.  We  were  faced 
with  the  slow  and  natural  conversion  of  terrestrial 
things  in  the  course  of  endless  ages. 

Species  must  have  been  liable  to  be  destroyed 
by  purely  natural  causes.  The  catastrophes  were 
abandoned,  yet  species  had  been  destroyed.  And 
when  that  was  granted — it  was  the  devil's  little 
finger — a  further  conclusion  was  inevitable.  If 
species  have  died  out  slowly  and  naturally  in 
the  history  of  the  earth,  and  new  species  have 
made  their  appearance  at  the  same  time,  may  not 
these  new  species  have  arisen  slowly  and  naturally  ? 
Suppose  these  simple  and  purely  natural  causes, 
that  had  brought  about  the  extinction  of  certain 
species,  had  been  for  others  the  very  starting-point 
of  development  ?     In  one  word :  if  the  extinction 


DARWIN  111 

was  not  due  to  a  mighty  divine  interference,  was  it 
not  conceivable  that  the  origin  also  may  not  have 
needed  such? 

One  more  deduction,  and  the  demon  of  know- 
ledge had  hold  of  the  entire  hand.  May  not  this 
natural  extinction  and  natural  new-birth  have  been 
directly  connected  in  many  cases  ?  As  a  fact, 
some  of  the  species  had  been  wholly  extirpated. 
But  others  had  provided  the  living  material  of 
the  new  arrivals ;  they  had  been  transformed  into 
these  apparently  new  species.  That  was  the 
decisive  deduction.  It  did  away  with  the  need 
of  any  sudden  creation.  It  merely  made  a  claim 
that  was  appalling  to  the  Linnean  principles  : 
namely,  that  species  may  change.  In  the  course 
of  time  and  at  a  favourable  spot  one  species  may 
be  transformed  into  another. 

Another  fairly  obvious  deduction  could  be  made. 
Who  brought  about  the  transformation  ?  Lyell 
proved  that,  without  any  catastrophes,  terrestrial 
things  are  constantly  changing — the  water  and  the 
land,  the  mountains  and  the  valleys,  and  even  the 
climate.  In  this  gradual  change  the  environments 
of  living  things  were  at  length  altered  to  such  an 
extent  that  they  were  bound  to  cause  a  change 
in  the  organisms.  However,  different  species 
reacted  in  different  ways.  Some  gradually  died 
out.  Others  adapted  themselves  to  the  new 
conditions ;  just  as,  in  human  affairs,  one  race 
breaks  down  under  changed  conditions  while 
another  rises  to  a  higher  and  richer  and  new 
stage  on  that  very  account.     No  creation  !    Merely 


112  HAECKEL 

transformations  of  species,  development  of  new 
forms  from  older  ones  by  adaptation  to  new, 
naturally  modified  conditions.  Even  zoology  and 
botany  were  without  the  finger  of  God  from  the 
earliest  days. 

Of  course  there  was  no  trace  of  these  latter 
deductions  in  Lyell.  But  they  pressed  themselves 
with  an  irresistible  and  decisive  force  on  the  mind 
of  one  of  his  first  readers,  Darwin. 

He  took  Lyell's  book  with  him  to  South 
America.  Step  by  step  the  logic  of  it  forced  him 
to  admit  that  this  was  what  must  have  taken  place 
somewhere.  First  the  idea  of  "extinct  species" 
became  a  concrete  picture  to  him  there,  a  sort  of 
diabolic  vision.  The  whole  substratum  of  the  pam- 
pas is  one  colossal  tomb  of  strange  monsters.  The 
bones  lie  bare  at  every  outcrop.  Megatheria,  or 
giant-sloths,  as  large  as  elephants,  and  with  thigh- 
bones three  times  as  thick  as  that  of  the  elephant, 
able  to  break  off  branches  in  the  primitive  forests 
with  their  paws  :  armadilloes  as  big  as  rhinoceroses, 
with  coats  as  hard  as  stone  and  curved  like 
barrels ;  gigantic  llamas,  the  macrouchenias, 
compared  with  which  the  modern  specimens  are 
Liliputians  ;  mastodons  and  wild  horses,  of  which 
America  was  entirely  free  even  in  the  days  of 
Columbus,  and  lion-like  carnivores  with  terrible 
sabre-teeth.  There  they  all  are  to-day — extinct, 
lost,  buried  in  the  deserted  cemetery  of  the 
pampas-loam. 

When  the  young  Darwin  stood  by  these  groves, 
like  Hamlet,  he  did  not  know   how  closely   this 


DARWIN  113 

ghost-world  came  to  our  own  day.  At  that  time 
the  armour  of  the  gigantic  armadillo,  the  glyptodon, 
that  had  formed  shelters  over  the  heads  of  the 
human  dwellers  in  the  pampas,  like  Esquimaux 
huts,  had  not  yet  been  discovered.  The  cave  of 
Ultima  Esperanza  in  Patagonia  had  not  been 
searched,  and  no  one  had  seen  the  red-haired  coat 
of  the  sloth  as  large  as  an  ox,  the  grypotherium 
(a  relative  of  the  real  megatherium),  cut  by  some 
prehistoric  human  hand,  amongst  a  heap,  several 
yards  deep,  of  the  animal's  manure — in  such  pecu- 
liar circumstances  as  to  prompt  the  suggestion  that 
the  giant-sloths  had  been  kept  tame  in  the  cavern, 
as  in  a  cyclopean  stable,  by  prehistoric  Indians. 
Darwin  thought  the  remains  were  very  old,  though 
this  by  no  means  lessened  the  inspiration. 

As  our  geological  Hamlet  speculated  over  these 
bones  of  extinct  monsters,  the  ideas  of  Linne  and 
Cuvier  struggled  fiercely  in  his  mind  with  the 
new,  heretical  ideas  inspired  by  Lyell.  How  was 
it  that  these  ancient,  extinct  animal  forms  of 
America  resembled  in  every  detail  and  in  the  most 
marked  characteristics  certain  living  American 
animals?  Before  him  were  the  relics  of  past 
sloths,  armadilloes,  and  giant-llamas.  In  the  actual 
America,  also,  there  were  sloths,  armadilloes,  and 
llamas,  though  with  some  difference.  And  no- 
where else  on  earth,  either  in  past  or  present 
time,  were  there  sloths,  armadilloes,  and  llamas. 
Cuvier  had  replied,  God  had  pleased  to  create 
those  ancient  megatheria,  glyptodons,  and  ma- 
crouchenias  of  America.     Then,  one  day,  he  sent 

8 


Hi  HAECKEL 

his  destructive  catastrophe,  and  swept  them  all 
away,  as  a  sponge  goes  over  the  table.  Then, 
in  the  empty  land,  he  created  afresh  the  sloths, 
armadilloes,  and  llamas  of  to-day.  But  why  had 
God  made  the  new  animals  so  like  the  old  that  the 
modern  zoologist  has  to  class  the  megatherium  in 
the  same  narrow  group  as  the  actual  sloth,  the 
ancient  gl3^ptodon  with  the  modern  armadillo,  and 
so  on  ? 

Darwin,  who  had  studied  theology,  was  unshaken 
with  regard  to  God  himself.  However,  something 
occurred  that  occurs  so  often  and  with  such  good 
result  in  the  history  of  thought.  It  appeared  to 
him  that  the  notion  of  a  direct  creation  is  by  no 
means  the  simplest  way  of  explaining  things,  but 
the  most  puzzling  and  complicated.  Darwin 
believed  in  Lyell.  There  had  been  no  destructive 
catastrophe  at  all  to  sweep  away  the  megatherium 
and  its  companions.  They  had  disappeared 
gradually,  by  natural  means.  Was  it  not  much 
more  rational  to  suppose  that  the  actual  sloths  and 
armadilloes  came  into  being  gradually,  by  natural 
means?  Part  of  the  old  animal  population  had 
not  perished,  but  been  transformed  into  the  actual 
species.  There  was  a  bond  of  relationship  be- 
tween the  past  and  the  present.  One  or  other 
grotesque  and  perhaps  helpless  giant  form  may 
have  completely  disappeared  in  the  course  of  time. 
But  the  golden  thread  of  life  was  never  entirely 
broken.  Other  and  more  fortunate  species  had 
preserved  the  type  of  the  sloth,  the  armadillo,  and 
the  llama ;  they  had  developed  naturally  into  the 


DARWIN  115 

living  animals  of  America.  God  might  remain  at 
the  groundwork  of  things.  He  had  launched 
matter  into  space,  and  impressed  natural  laws  on 
it.  But  these  sufficed  for  the  further  work.  They 
created  America.  They  developed  the  mammal 
into  the  sloth  and  the  armadillo  in  the  days  of 
the  megatherium  and  the  glyptodon.  They  main- 
tained these  types  in  the  country,  in  a  straight 
line  of  development ;  the  progressive  principle  of 
life  bringing  about  the  extinction  of  certain  forms, 
and  transforming  others  by  a  more  fitting  adapta- 
tion to  their  environment. 

Darwin  always  looked  back  on  this  first  conflict 
of  his  ideas  in  presence  of  the  dead  shells  and 
bones  of  the  ancient  pampas  animals  as  an  hour 
of  awakening.  It  was  the  birth  of  his  humanity  in 
the  higher  sense.  It  is  of  interest  to  us  because  it 
coincides  exactly  with  the  date  of  Haeckel's  birth 
in  the  ordinary  sense. 

In  Darwin's  fine  account  of  his  voyage,  which  is 
mostly  arranged  in  the  form  of  a  diary,  we  find  a 
passage  written  on  the  east  coast  of  Patagonia  on 
January  9,  1834,  and  the  next  on  April  13th.  In 
the  meantime  the  ship  had  made  a  short  zigzag 
course,  which  is  spoken  of  in  another  connection. 
But  the  interval  between  the  two  dates  is  taken 
up  with  a  passage  on  these  gigantic  animals,  the 
reasons  for  their  extinction  and  the  striking  fact 
of  their  bodily  resemblance  to  the  living  animals  of 
Sout^  America.  *^  This  remarkable  resemblance/' 
we  read,  "  between  the  dead  and  the  living  animals 
of  one  and  the  same  continent  will  yet,  I  doubt 


116  HAECKEL 

not,  throw  more  light  on  the  appearance  of  organic 
beings  on  the  earth  than  any  other  class  of  facts." 
This  is  clearly  a  summary  of  Darwin's  deepest 
thoughts  at  the  time.  Haeckel  was  born  on 
February  16th  of  the  same  year,  1834.  Thus  the 
bodily  birth  of  one  of  the  two  men  whom  we 
conceive  to-day  as  Dioscuri  coincides  with  the 
spiritual  rebirth  of  the  other.  But  it  would  be 
nearly  thirty  years  before  they  would  meet  in  spirit 
never  to  part  again.  At  the  very  beginning  of 
their  acquaintance  Darwin  wrote  a  letter  to  Haeckel 
(October  8,  1864)  in  which  he  speaks  of  the  earliest 
suggestions  of  his  theory.  The  Hamlet-hour  comes 
back  vividly  to  his  memory.  ''  I  shall  never  forget 
my  astonishment  when  I  dug  out  a  gigantic  piece 
of  armour,  like  that  of  a  living  armadillo.  As  I 
reflected  on  these  facts  and  compared  others  of  a 
like  nature,  it  seemed  to  me  probable  that  closely 
related  species  may  have  descended  from  a  common 
ancestor." 

However  we  take  it,  Darwin  then  saw  for  the 
first  time  that  his  difficulty  about  the  mutability 
of  species  was  from  the  first,  in  his  own  mind,  a 
difficulty  about  God.  He  began  his  doubts  with 
the  ancient  armadillo  ;  he  ended  with  God. 

On  the  return  journey  from  South  America,  which 
amounted  to  a  circumnavigation  of  the  globe,  the 
struggle  was  renewed  at  the  Galapagos  islands. 
Volcanic  forces  had  raised  these  islands  from  the 
bed  of  the  ocean  in  comparatively  recent  times. 
They  were,  therefore,  bound  to  be  a  virgin  province 
at  the  time.   Now,  however,  the  walls  of  the  crater 


DARWIN  .         117 

were  clothed  with  vegetation,  birds  flew  after  insects, 
and  gigantic  turtles  and  lizards  lived  on  the  shores. 
Whence  did  these  plants  and  animals  come  ? 
Darwin  examines  them.  They  have  an  unusual 
appearance,  and  seem  to  point  to  America.  Yet 
not  a  single  species  is  now  wholly  American  ;  each 
has  its  peculiarities.  An  historical  controversy 
arises  over  the  islands,  and  men  range  themselves 
in  parties  once  more.  Empty  islands  emerge  from 
the  blue  waters.  How  are  they  to  be  populated  ? 
There  are  two  possibilities.  One  is  that  God 
has  created  the  animals  and  plants — Galapagos 
animals  and  plants.  But  in  that  case  why  has  he 
created  them  entirely  on  the  American  model, 
while  diverging  from  it  in  small  details  ?  The 
second  possibility  is  that  the  animals  and  plants 
were  brought  by  the  current  or  the  wind  from  the 
neighbouring  American  coast ;  they  are  American 
plants  and  animals.  After  landing  on  the  islands, 
they  adapted  themselves  to  their  new  surroundings, 
and  were  altered.  Hence  both  the  resemblance 
and  the  diference.  The  theory  assumes,  of  course, 
that  species  are  mutable.  If  that  is  so,  we  can 
explain  everything — without  God. 

But  the  greatest  and  tensest  struggle  began 
when  Darwin  returned  home.  He  approached  the 
most  audacious,  but  most  striking  fact,  for  his  pur- 
pose. Up  to  this  the  question  had  been  whether 
new  species  were  produced  by  God  or  by  natural 
necessity.  Now  a  third  element  was  introduced, 
man  himself.  He  also  alters  species,  as  a  breeder 
of  pigeons,  rabbits,  sheep.     He  has  done  it  with 


118  HAECKEL 

success  for  ages — only  the  Linnes  and  Cuviers 
had  not  noticed  the  fact.  How  does  he  accom- 
plish it? 

A  breeder  desires  to  give  his  sheep  finer  wool. 
He  examines  the  wool  of  a  thousand  sheep.  The 
difference  between  them  is  so  slight  that  it  is  of 
no  practical  consequence.  But  the  farmer  selects 
the  male  sheep  out  of  the  thousand  that  has  the 
best  quality  of  wool,  and  the  corresponding  female. 
He  crosses  the  two.  Their  young  have  wool  of 
a  slightly  improved  quality,  and  he  picks  out  the 
best  amongst  them  once  more  for  crossing.  He 
continues  this  through  several  generations.  At 
last,  with  his  continuous  selection  and  crossing, 
the  quality  of  the  wool  increases  so  much  that 
any  one  can  recognise  it  at  once,  and  it  has  a 
distinct  cultural  value.  In  this  way  improved 
races  of  animals  and  large  numbers  of  fine  flowers 
have  been  produced  by  breeders :  by  artificial 
selection  of  the  fittest  to  reproduce  in  each  genera- 
tion. This  was  done  by  man — not  by  God,  not 
by  nature  in  remote  times,  but  under  our  very 
eyes,  by  man. 

Now  for  an  analogous  process  without  man. 
Let  our  sheep  live  wild  in  any  country.  No 
human  breeder  has  any  interest  in  them  :  God 
does  not  seem  to  interfere  with  them.  They  live 
on  and  on,  for  thousands  of  years,  generation  after 
generation.  Here  again,  in  the  wild  state,  we  find 
the  same  slight  variations  in  the  quality  of  the 
wool.  One  sheep  has  a  thicker  coat  than  another. 
For  thousands  of  years  the  fact  is  without  signifi- 


DARWIN  119 

cance.  Then  occurs  a  slow  change  of  the  envi- 
ronment. The  cHmate  becomes  colder.  Perhaps 
an  ice-age  sets  in,  such  as  our  earth  seems  to  have 
passed  through  many  times.  There  are  two  alter- 
natives. A  very  hard  winter  may  set  in  at  once 
and  all  the  sheep  perish,  because  their  woolly  coat 
is  too  thin  in  all  cases.  That  would  mean  the 
extinction  of  a  whole  species.  But  the  severe 
cold  may  come  on  gradually.  The  winters  are 
more  trying.  So  many  sheep  perish  in  the  first 
winters  ;  but  so  many  others  survive.  Which  will 
survive  ?  Naturally,  those  that  happened  to  have 
the  thicker  coats.  Those  alone  live  on  to  the 
spring,  and  reproduce.  The  following  year  the  coat 
is  thicker  all  round,  as  the  lambs  all  came  from 
relatively  thick-coated  parents.  The  winter 
decimates  them  again,  and  the  thickest  coated 
survive  once  more,  and  so  on.  The  pressure  of 
external  conditions,  the  '^  struggle  for  life,"  selects 
just  as  man  does.  Only  the  best  adapted  indivi- 
duals survive  and  reproduce. 

The  whole  earth  is  a  vast  field  of  splendid 
adaptations.  The  tree-frogs  are  green  because 
only  green  frogs  are  preserved ;  all  the  others  are 
destroyed.  The  arctic  hare  is  white  on  the  snow, 
the  desert-fox  yellow.  For  a  thousand  reasons 
in  the  course  of  the  earth's  development  these 
backgrounds — white,  yellow,  green  ;  snow,  desert, 
forest,  &c. — have  themselves  been  constantly 
changing  under  the  action  of  Lyell's  changes  in 
the  crust  of  the  earth.  Hence  constantly  fresh 
adaptations,  with  a  certain  percentage  of  complete 


120  HAECKEL 

extinctions.  In  these  ceaseless  new  adaptations  we 
see  a  picture  of  an  eternal  progressive  development. 
Always  a  finer  selection :  always  better  material : 
natural  things  always  selecting  and  being  selected. 
Man  is  superfluous  in  this  world-old,  eternal  pro- 
cess.    And  God,  too,  is  superfluous. 

That  was  Darwin's  last  and  decisive  thought. 
Divine  action  was  excluded  from  the  whole  pro- 
vince of  animal  and  plant  species.  It  does  not 
matter  whether  or  no  the  shrewd  idea  of  natural 
selection  solves  the  whole  problem.  Why  speak 
of  "  whole,"  when  all  problems  are  really  un- 
fathomable ?  He  left  open  the  question  of  the 
origin  of  the  first  slight  variations,  the  first  increase 
in  the  fineness  or  thickness  of  the  sheep's  wool,  for 
instance.  He  left  open  the  question  of  the  inner 
nature  of  the  process — and  a  good  deal  more.  But 
these  things  did  not  affect  the  great  issue. 

What  Darwin  did  was  to  show  for  the  first 
time  how  we  might  conceive  the  natural  evolu- 
tion of  species ;  to  suggest  that  the  miracle  of 
the  purposive  adaptation  of  organisms  to  their 
environment  could  be  explained  by  purely  natural 
causes  without  introducing  teleological  and  super- 
natural agencies  to  bring  the  disharmony  into 
harmony.  The  older  mind  and  logic  had  seen  the 
action  of  G-od  everywhere  ;  the  new  thought  and 
logic  were  gradually  restricting  his  sphere.  Dar- 
win took  away  a  whole  province  from  the  teleolo- 
gist  when  he  merely  set  up  the  idea  of  selection. 
He  towered  above  himself  in  that  moment. 
Natural   philosophy   wrested   zoology  and   botany 


DARWIN  121 

from  the  hands  of  Linne  and  Cuvier.  It  destroyed 
tlie  old  idea  of  a  design  in  the  interest  of  natural 
law  and  the  general  unity  of  nature.  *'  Allah  need 
create  no  more."  We  cannot  emphasise  it  too 
much  :  it  was  the  conceivability  that  settled  the 
question.  Darwin  had  shown  that  '4t  might 
have  been  so,"  and  this  possibility  stood  for  the 
first  time  in  zoology  and  botany  opposed,  with  all 
the  weight  of  logic,  to  the  other  theory,  which  was 
no  more  understood,  but  was  supplied  by  imagina- 
tion to  fill  a  gap — the  idea  of  a  special  creation 
of  each  animal  species,  the  idea  that  the  green 
tree-frog,  had  been  created  amongst  the  foliage 
just  as  he  was.  The  feebler  fancy  gave  way  to 
the  better.  In  this  concession  lay  whole  sciences 
that  would  have  to  be  entirely  transformed  on  the 
strength  of  Darwin's  achievement. 

Narrow-minded  folk  have  tried  to  make  light 
of  the  mere  ''possibility,"  creating  a  distinction 
between  truth  and  logical  theory.  As  if  all  truth 
were  not  solely  in  the  human  mind !  What  an 
age  can  conceive  is  true  to  that  age.  There  is 
nothing  higher  in  the  bounds  of  time  and  the 
development  in  which  we  are  involved.  All  truth 
and  science  began  for  humanity  in  the  form  of 
possibilities.  Copernicus's  theory  was  only  a 
possibility  when  it  first  came.  All  that  we  call 
human  culture  has  come  of  the  putting  together 
of  thousands  upon  thousands  of  these  possibilities, 
like  so  many  stones.  It  is  no  use  raising  up 
against  it  the  figment  of  ''  absolute  truth."  The 
main  point  was  that  Darwin   raised   the   conceiv- 


122  HAECKEL 

ability  of  a  natural  origin  of  species  by  the  modifica- 
tion of  older  foims,  which  were  driven  ceaselessly 
to  new  adaptations  under  the  stress  of  the  struggle 
for  life,  to  such  a  pitch  that  the  older  possibility 
of  a  creation  of  each  species  and  its  deliberate 
adaptation  by  supernatural  action  sank  lower  and 
lower.  It  was  a  pure  conflict  of  ideas  ;  the  greater 
overcame  the  smaller — now  smaller. 

Darwin's  work,  the  Origin  of  Species^  was  pub- 
lished on  November  24,  1859,  after  twenty-five 
years  of  study.  He  kept  the  theory  of  selection 
to  himself  for  more  than  twenty  years.  The 
whole  of  the  young  generation  from  the  beginning 
of  the  thirties,  to  which  Haeckel  belonged,  grew 
up  without  any  suspicion  of  it.  Apart  from  the 
constant  ill-health  that  hindered  his  work,  Darwin 
was  tortured  with  anxiety  lest  he  should  be  treated 
as  an  imaginative  dilettante  with  his  heretical 
ideas.  In  the  scientific  circles  of  the  middle  of  the 
century  one  was  apt  to  be  disdainfully  put  down 
as  a  windy  "natural  philosopher"  if  one  spoke 
of  "  the  evolution  of  animal  and  plant  species  " 
and  the  like.  The  word  had  become  the  scare- 
crow of  the  exact,  professional  scientific  workers ; 
much  as  when  commercial  men  exclaim,  ''  Dear 
me,  the  man's  a  poet."  Hence  Darwin  wanted 
to  provide  a  most  solid  foundation  of  research  for 
his  work,  and  then  to  smuggle  it  into  the  house 
like  a  goblin  in  a  jar. 

He  took  his  task  so  seriously  that,  as  Lyell 
afterwards  wrote  to  him,  he  might  have  worked 
on  until  his  hundredth  year  without  ever  being 


DARWIN  123 

ready  in  the  sense  he  wished.  Chance  had  to 
intervene,  and  bring  forward  one  of  the  younger 
men,  who  almost  robbed  him  of  the  title  of 
discoverer.  Wallace  arrived  independently  at  the 
idea  of  selection,  and  he  was  within  a  hair's 
breadth  of  being  the  first  to  publish  it.  The  aged 
scholar  at  Down  had  to  come  forward.  Then  the 
great  book  was  published,  and  Wallace  disappeared 
in  its  shadow. 

In  Darwin's  opinion  it  was  only  a  preliminary 
extract,  and  he  added  many  supplementary 
volumes  as  time  went  on.  As  a  fact  it  was  so 
severely  elaborated  that  even  the  thoughtful 
layman,  possibly  with  a  sympathy  for  the  idea, 
was  almost,  if  not  wholly,  unable  to  digest  the 
proofs.  It  had  to  be  "translated''  for  the  majority 
of  Darwin's  educated  countrymen.  On  the  other 
hand,  this  mass  of  facts  was  partly  strange  and 
new  to  the  professional  biologists.  What  did  so 
many  of  the  museum-zoologists  know,  for  instance, 
of  the  results  and  problems  of  the  practical  breeder  ? 
"That  belongs  to  the  province  of  my  colleague 
who  teaches  agriculture,  not  to  mine."  His 
proofs  were  taken  indiscriminately  from  zoology, 
botany,  and  geology.  But  at  that  time  it  was  woe 
to  the  man  that  mixed  up  the  various  branches 
of  research.  The  professor  of  zoology  could  not 
control  the  botanical  material,  and  vice  versa. 
There  was,  in  addition,  the  general  dislike  of  the 
natural-philosophical  nucleus.  It  was  impossible 
to  suppose  that  this  very  individual  book,  trans- 
gressing every  rule,  should  at  once  meet  with 
wide  encouragement,  or  even  ordinary  appreciation. 


124  HAECKEL 

In  England  Darwin's  repute  as  a  traveller  and 
geologist,  and  the  personal  respect  felt  for  him,  had 
some  effect.  Then  came  a  small  circle  of  friends, 
Hooker,  Huxley,  even,  to  some  extent,  the  aged 
Lyell,  who  had  seen  the  manuscript  before  pub- 
lication, and  had  at  once  started  a  more  or  less 
brisk  propaganda.  In  the  first  six  months  three 
editions  of  the  work  were  sold,  so  that  it  was  read 
by  a  few  thousand  men.  As  a  rule  there  was  at 
that  time  less  dread  of  ^'natural  philosophy"  in 
England  than  elsewhere.  But  pious  minds  were 
alarmed  at  the  '^  struggle  against  God  "  that  was 
based  on  the  exact  data  of  zoology,  botany,  and 
geology. 

Darwin  had  made  that  the  salient  point,  as  a 
glance  at  the  work  shows,  since  he  closes  with 
a  reference  to  the  Deity.  He  said  it  was  a 
^^  grand "  view  of  the  Creator  to  suppose  that 
he  had  created  only  the  first  forms  of  life  on  the 
earth,  and  then  left  it  to  natural  laws  to  develop 
these  germs  into  the  various  species  of  animals 
and  plants.  It  was  prudent  to  restrict  the  theistic 
conflict.  God  was  merely  excluded  from  the  origin 
of  species.  Natural  selection  did  not  apply  to  the 
further  problem  of  the  origin  of  the  primitive 
life-forms  and  of  life  itself.  Theism  could  retain 
them.  There  was  something  soothing  psycho- 
logically in  the  phrase,  which  was  often  attacked 
subsequently,  and  did  not  represent  Darwin's 
later  views.  It  was  characteristic  of  Darwin's 
gentle  disposition. 

He  did  not  start  out  from  the  position  that  God 


DARWIN  125 

does  not  exist,  and  that  we  must,  at  all  costs, 
seek  natural  causes  for  the  origin  of  things.  He 
had  not  abandoned  the  idea  of  the  clerical  pro- 
fession because  he  had  lost  belief  in  God,  but 
because  he  had  more  attraction  for  catching 
butterflies  and  shooting  birds.  Still  a  firm  theist, 
he  had  been  convinced,  as  a  candid  geologist, 
by  Lyell's  demonstration  that  God  had  had 
nothing  to  do  with  the  moulding  of  hill  and 
valley  or  the  distribution  of  land  and  water.  As 
a  candid  zoologist  and  botanist  he  had  then  con- 
vinced himself  that  the  analogous  changes  in 
the  animal  and  plant  worlds  had  needed  no  divine 
intervention. 

As  yet,  however,  he  saw  no  reason  to  draw  more 
radical  conclusions.  He  sought,  as  far  as  honour 
permitted,  a  certain  peace  of  thought  by  asking 
whether  this  indirect  action  of  the  personal  Kuler 
over  such  vast  provinces  did  not  enhance  the 
idea  of  him  instead  of  detracting  from  it. 

Goethe  would  have  been  prepared,  on  his 
principles,  to  recognise  the  step  taken  in  the 
direction  of  natural  law  as  a  victory  for  our  in- 
creasing knowledge  of  and  reverence  for  the  Deity. 
For  him  a  natural  law  was  the  will  of  God ;  if 
natural  selection  created  species,  he  would  have 
seen  merely  the  will  of  God  in  selection.  But 
Darwin  had  not  yet  advanced  so  far,  and  still 
less  could  this  be  expected  in  his  pious  readers. 

However,  we  find  a  curious  confession  a  few 
paragraphs  before  the  theistic  conclusion  of  the 
book.     It   runs:    "Light  will   be   thrown  on  the 


126  HAECKEL 

origin  and  history  of  humanity."  Light,  that  is  to 
say,  from  the  theory  of  the  transformation  of  species 
by  natural  selection.  The  words  contained  the 
promise  of  a  new  twilight  of  the  gods.  In  the 
innocent  days,  when  the  Creator  stood  in  person 
behind  each  species  of  animal  and  plant,  Linne  had 
seen  no  great  innovation  in  his  defining  man  as 
a  definite  species,  the  highest  species  of  mammal. 
God  had  created  the  polar  bear  and  the  hippo- 
potamus, Genesis  said,  as  well  as  man.  That  man 
had  transgressed  the  command  in  Paradise,  fallen 
into  sin,  needed  salvation,  and  so  on,  was  another 
matter  altogether.  With  Darwin  the  innovation 
was  incalculably  important. 

On  his  theory  the  various  species  of  animals 
had  been  developed  from  each  other,  without 
a  new  creative  act.  If  man  was  an  animal  species 
in  this  sense,  he  also  must  have  originated  from 
other  animals  ;  and  that  would  be  bitter.  The 
phrase  shows  that  Darwin  already  saw  clearly, 
and  had  abandoned  his  belief  in  a  special  creation 
of  man.  But  this  point  was  bound  to  make  more 
bad  blood  than  all  the  rest  put  together.  God, 
now  restricted  to  the  direct  production  of  the  first 
living  things,  had  lost  man  as  well  as  the  animals. 
Moreover,  whatever  interpretation  was  put  upon 
the  Mosaic  narrative,  the  very  source  of  theistic 
belief,  the  Bible,  was  called  into  question.  How 
had  we  come  to  know  of  this  story  of  divine 
creations  ?  By  the  Bible,  the  vehicle  of  revelation. 
But  this  Bible  was  the  work  of  man,  and  man  was 
now  well  within  the  bounds  of  nature,  from  which 


DARWIN  127 

God  had  been  excluded.  How  could  he  learn  any- 
thing from  revelation  ?  The  biblical  writers  had 
clearly  only  made  conjectures.  Some  of  them — 
with  regard  to  Adam,  for  instance — were  certainly 
incorrect.  There  was  nothing  in  the  Bible  about 
evolution  by  means  of  selection.  Indeed,  was  not 
the  whole  picture  of  a  creating  Deity  an  error  ? 
These  thoughts  were  bound  to  press  upon  the 
religious  mind  with  all  their  logical  force.  When 
they  did  so,  the  very  foundations  of  theology 
became  insecure,  to  a  far  more  serious  extent  than 
Darwin's  moderate  conclusion  suggested.  When 
the  book  fell  on  this  contentious  ground,  it  was 
bound,  even  if  it  were  only  read  in  the  last  two 
pages,  to  provoke  vast  waves  of  hostility  against 
its  heretical  zoology  and  botany,  especially  in 
England. 

•  •  •  •  • 

Haeckel  was  in  Italy  when  the  work — the  work 
of  his  life,  too,  as  the  sequel  shows — was  published. 
We  have  seen  where  he  was :  in  sight  of  the  blue 
sea,  penetrating  for  the  first  time  into  a  special 
section  of  zoology,  the  radiolaria,  and  making 
it  his  own.  He  was  far  from  theorising,  for  the 
first  years  of  reality  were  upon  him.  He  returned 
to  Berlin  at  the  beginning  of  May,  1860,  bringing 
his  study  of  the  radiolaria,  and  resolved  to  publish 
it  in  comprehensive  form.  Here  he  learned  for 
the  first  time  that  a  "mad"  work  by  Darwin 
had  appeared,  that  denied  the  venerable  Linnean 
dogma  of  the  immutability  of  species. 

German  official  science  was  now  invaded  from 


128  HAECKEL 

two  sides  at  once.  Haeckel  had  returned  like  a 
new  man  from  the  freshness  of  Italy;  and  Darwin's 
work,  translated  by  Bronn,  was  bringing  some 
slight  extract  of  the  English  student's  thoughts, 
like  a  draught  of  old  golden  wine.  They  were 
bound  to  meet  this  time. 

The  aged  Bronn,  a  German  naturalist  of  distinc- 
tion and  merit,  had  found  the  Origin  of  Species 
interesting  enough,  at  least,  to  deserve  the  trouble 
of  translation.  But  his  interest  in  it  was  very 
restricted.  He  was  one  of  the  thoughtful  students 
of  the  days  following  Cuvier,  and  was  not  of  the 
kind  to  pin  his  faith  to  one  man.  The  appearance 
of  the  plant  and  animal  species  in  the  various 
terrestrial  periods,  so  sharply  separated  by  Cuvier 
himself,  showed  unmistakably  an  ascent  from 
lower  to  higher  forms.  The  fish  is  placed  lower  in 
the  system  than  the  mammal.  At  a  certain  period 
there  were  fishes  living,  but  no  mammals  as  yet. 
At  another  period  the  only  plants  on  the  earth  were 
of  the  decidedly  lower  group  of  the  cryptogams 
(ferns,  shore-grasses,  club-mosses),  and  these  were 
succeeded  by  pines  and  palm-ferns,  and  finally  by 
the  true  palms  and  foliage-trees.  Cuvier's  theory 
of  creation  had  to  take  account  of  this.  Agassiz, 
who  held  firmly  to  the  fresh  creation  of  species  in 
each  new  epoch,  conceived  the  Creator  as  an  artist 
who  improved  in  his  work  in  the  course  of  time. 
Each  new  achievement  was  better  than  the  pre- 
ceding. It  was  rather  a  curious  idea  of  the 
Creator ! 

Others,  who  did  not  venture  to  use  the  idea  of 


Photograph  ok  Marble  Bust  hv  G.  Herold. 


To  face  p.  128. 


DAEWIN  .  129 

Deity  quite  so  naively  as  Agassiz  in  zoology  and 
botany,  conceived  a  "law  of  development  "  within 
life  itself.  It  was  a  time  when  belief  in  a  'Wital 
force "  was  universal.  Living  things  had  their 
peculiar  force,  which  was  not  found  in  lifeless 
things.  The  life-principle  might  be  at  work  in  the 
law  of  development.  It  would  raise  living  things 
higher  and  higher  in  the  succeeding  geological 
epochs.  It  was  a  vague  theory,  though  it  purported 
to  cover  not  only  the  fact  but  the  machinery  of 
development.  In  the  course  of  ages  it  brought 
about  the  appearance  of  new  species.  Those  who 
held  this  idea  of  an  immanent  law  of  evolution 
rejected  the  older  notion  of  a  personal  Deity, 
putting  in  an  appearance  suddenly  at  the^beginning 
of  the  secondary  period  and  creating  the  ichthyo- 
sauri ''  out  of  nothing."  They  looked  upon 
Cuvier's  catastrophes,  to  which  Agassiz  still  clung, 
with  a  touch  of  Lyell's  scepticism.  The  "law 
of  evolution "  had  been  the  deus  ex  machina  of 
the  long  procession  of  life-forms.  One  day  a  fish 
ceased  to  give  birth  to  little  fishes  in  the  manner 
of  its  parents.  The  "law  of  evolution"  was  at 
work  in  its  ova,  and  suddenly  little  ichthyosauri 
were  developed  from  them.  Thus,  again,  a  lizard 
was  believed  to  have  engendered  young  mammals 
one  day.  One  student  would  hold  that  the  tran- 
sition was  quite  abrupt  in  this  sense.  Another 
would  think  it  more  gradual,  and  approach  the 
idea  of  a  slow  transformation  of  a  fish  into  a 
lizard,  and  a  lizard  into  a  mammal,  or  a  tree-fern 
into  a  palm-fern,  and  this  into  a  true  palm.     At 

9 


130  HA  ECKEL 

the  bottom  they  were  all  agreed  that  the  whole 
inner  law  of  evolution  had  nothing  whatever  in 
common  with  the  other  laws  of  nature  and  was 
not  subordinate  to  them.  They  did  not  hold  an 
evolution  in  harmony  with  the  great  mechanism 
of  natural  laws.  Their  principle  got  astride  of 
natural  laws  at  certain  points,  like  a  little  man, 
and  turned  them  in  this  or  that  direction. 

Very  little  philosophic  reflection  was  needed  to 
show  that  they  had  merely  replaced  the  Creator  with 
a  word.  The  older  Dualism  remained.  On  one  side 
was  the  raw  material  of  the  world  with  the  ordinary 
natural  laws  ;  on  the  other  side  a  lord  and  master, 
the  law  of  evolution,  playing  with  the  laws  as  it 
pleased,  and  moulding  the  material  into  new  life- 
forms  in  an  advancing  series.  It  is  true  that  they 
no  longer  pictured  to  themselves  a  venerable  being 
with  a  white  beard  creating  the  ichthyosauri, 
but  the  finger  of  God  remained  in  the  law  of 
evolution,  attenuated  into  a  special  and  spectral 
form.  The  God  that  acted  from  without  was 
banished,  but  the  ^'impulse  from  within,"  reduced 
to  a  mere  skeleton  in  substance,  was  put  upon  the 
throne. 

The  advocates  of  the  law  of  evolution  had 
assuredly  done  much  in  preparing  the  way  for 
Darwin,  as  they  had  insisted  that  certain  advances 
in  detail  were  undeniable  and  built  up  theories  from 
the  chaotic  material  provided  by  special  research — 
especially  seeing  that  some  of  the  ablest  naturalists 
of  the  time  were  amongst  them,  who  determined 
to  retain  speculation  in  zoology  and  botany.     But, 


DARWIN  131 

on  the  other  hand,  it  cannot  be  questioned  that 
the  confused  nature  of  their  fundamental  idea, 
which,  in  fact,  was  not  far  removed  from  the  theo- 
logical notion  of  the  vital  force,  gave  the  rigid  and 
*'  exact  "  academic  workers  an  apparent  right  to 
reject  all  speculation  on  the  possibility  of  an  evolu- 
tion of  species  as  an  unscientific  dream.  The  aged 
Bronn  was  in  1860  one  of  the  most  prudent  and 
sober  of  the  advocates  of  the  inner  principle  of 
evolution.  He  candidly  acknowledged  that  Darwin 
had  struck  a  severe  blow  at  the  great  idea  of  his 
life,  on  one  side  at  least.  Darwin's  work  not 
merely  dismissed  God  to  the  wings  as  a  personality, 
but  even  left  no  room  for  the  finger  of  God,  for  his 
spiritual  writing  on  the  walls  of  the  living  world. 
It  found  evidence  of  natural  laws  alone.  From 
them  came,  if  not  life  itself,  at  all  events  selec- 
tion, adaptation,  and  evolution  by  virtue  of  this 
increasing  adaptation — the  higher  advance  that 
converted  the  fish  into  a  lizard  and  the  lizard  into 
a  mammal.  The  fine  old  worker,  with  an  age  of 
indefatigable  labour  behind  him,  though  he  had 
not  got  beyond  the  idea  of  a  "law  of  evolution,'* 
looked  on  Darwin  with  a  mixture  of  fear  and 
admiration  as  he  cut  into  the  very  heart  of  these 
problems.  He  added  amiable  notes  to  the  work 
to  the  effect  that  one  would  like  to  go  so  far,  but 
the  distance  was  intimidating.  In  fact,  he  omitted 
altogether  from  his  translation  the  very  important 
phrase  that  *^  light  would  be  thrown  on  the  origin 
of  man."  It  would  be  a  terrible  affair,  he  thought, 
if  the  discussion  were  at   once   turned   on  this. 


132  HAECKEL 

Man  himself  owing  his  origin  neither  to  God  nor 
the  finger  of  God,  but  to  natural  selection  in  the 
ordinary  course  of  natural  laws  !  It  was  not  to  be 
thought  of.  Hence  the  phrase  was  struck  out,  as 
quite  too  extravagant,  in  his  otherwise  admirable 
work. 

Bronn  had  himself  become  something  of  a 
revolutionary  amongst  his  colleagues  by  the 
translation.  The  rigidly  '^  exact  "  workers  crossed 
themselves  before  the  Germanised  work.  Most  of 
the  *'  evolutionists  "  in  the  older  sense  had  by  no 
means  the  bonhomie  to  speak  even  of  a  ^'  possi- 
bility" like  the  patriarch  Bronn.  From  the  first 
Darwin  was  —  Haeckel  was  the  first  to  experi- 
ence it — branded  with  the  anathemas  of  the  two 
opposite  schools  of  science  in  Germany.  On  the 
one  hand  the  rigorous  and  exact  workers  declared 
that  his  teaching  was  pure  metaphysics,  because 
it  sought  to  prove  evolution  and  contemplated 
vast  ideal  connections.  On  the  other  hand  the 
Dualist  metaphysicians  denounced  him  as  an 
empiric  of  the  worst  character,  who  sought  to 
replace  the  great  ideal  elements  in  the  world  by 
a  few  miserable  natural  necessities.  It  is 
significant  to  find  that  Schopenhauer,  the  brilliant 
thinker,  regarded  the  Origin  of  Species  as  one  of 
the  empirical  soapsud  or  barber  books  produced 
by  exact  investigation,  which  he  thoroughly 
despised  from  his  metaphysical  point  of  view. 
And  there  were  already  (there  are  more  to-day) 
whole  schools  of  zoology  and  botany  that  looked 
upon    Darwin's    theoretical   explanations   as   un- 


DARWIN  133 

scientific  '^  mysticism,"  '*  metaphysics,"  and  "phi- 
losophy in  the  worst  sense  of  the  word." 

Haeckel  read  the  dangerous  book  at  BerHn  in 
May,  1860.  "  It  profoundly  moved  me,"  he  writes 
to  me,  "  at  the  first  reading.  But  as  all  the 
Berlin  magnates  (with  the  single  exception  of 
Alexander  Braun)  were  against  it,  I  could  make 
no  headway  in  my  defence  of  it.  I  did  not 
breathe  freely  until  I  visited  Gegenbaur  at  Jena 
(June,  1860) ;  my  long  conversations  with  him 
finally  confirmed  my  conviction  of  the  truth  of 
Darwinism  or  transformism." 

It  was,  therefore,  in  the  critical  days  imme- 
diately before  or  during  the  negotiations  with 
Gegenbaur  which  led  to  his  setting  up  as  a 
private  teacher  at  Jena.  The  names  of  Darwin 
and  Jena  unite  chronologically  in  Haeckel's  life — 
two  great  names  that  were  to  bear  him  into  the 
very  depths  of  his  career,  and  that  have  their  roots 
in  the  same  hour. 

We  may  ask  what  it  was  in  the  book  that 
"profoundly  moved"  the  young  student  of  the 
radiolaria.  The  name  of  Braun  only  partly 
explains  the  matter,  as  Braun  was  an  evolutionist 
of  the  same  type  as  Bronn.  He  was  amiably 
disposed  to  meet  it,  but  did  not  openly  enter  on 
the  new  path.  We  must  go  deeper.  We  then 
understand  it  clearly  enough,  if  we  recollect 
Haeckel's  bent  in  the  last  few  years. 

He  had  no  longer  any  scruples  with  regard  to 
religion.  The  God  of  tradition  had  been  entirely 
replaced  in   him  by  Goethe's  God,  who   did   not 


134  HAECKEL 

stand  outside  of,  but  was  one  with,  nature. 
*'  There  is  nothing  within,  nothing  without :  for 
what  is  within  is  without."  There  was  not  a 
kernel,  God,  and  a  shell,  Nature.  **  Nature  has 
neither  kernel  nor  shell :    it  is  both  together." 

The  years  spent  in  southern  Italy  had  certainly 
helped  to  bring  out  as  strongly  as  possible  the 
contrast  between  Goethe's  conception  and  the 
conventional  idea  of  God  as  an  extramundane 
Creator.  No  surroundings  are  more  apt  to  do 
this  than  the  Eomance  peoples  of  the  Mediter- 
ranean. In  the  northern,  Protestant  countries  the 
ecclesiastical  tradition  of  Deity  has  always  a 
spiritual  element,  a  kind  of  vague  resolution  into 
moral  laws,  that  in  some  measure  approach 
natural  law,  though  one  made  by  man.  There  is 
no  trace  of  this  in  Naples  and  Sicily.  The  super- 
natural there  is  the  saint,  the  madonna ;  they 
penetrate  unceasingly  into  the  natural  reality,  in 
every  little  detail  of  life  and  conduct.  The 
antithesis  of  the  poor  cosmic  machinery  and  the 
ever-present  heavenly  help  and  supersession  of  it 
is  raised  to  a  supreme  height  in  the  popular  belief. 
Miracles  are  not  relegated  to  earlier  days  and 
ancient  books.  They  are  expected,  affirmed,  and 
believed  every  day.  The  saint  fills  the  net  of  the 
fisherman  as  he  chases  the  edible  cuttle-fishes  by 
torchlight.  The  saint  makes  the  storm  that 
threatens  the  boat — makes  it  suddenly  out  of 
nothing.  The  madonna  can  arrest  in  a  second 
the  glowing  stream  of  lava  that  rolls  towards  the 
village  from  Vesuvius,  and  if  hundreds  of  them 


DARWIN  135 

unite  in  ardent  prayer  and  the  making  of  vows, 
she  will  be  appeased  and  do  it.  Every  hair  on  a 
man's  head  is  twofold  ;  there  is  the  natm^al  hair 
and  a  hair  that  can  at  any  moment  be  changed, 
transformed,  annihilated,  or  created  afresh  from 
nothing,  by  divine  power.  The  man  who  has 
lived  in  this  atmosphere  of  practical  Dualism  for 
years  must  be  saturated  to  his  innermost  being 
with  a  feeling  of  the  absolute  contradiction 
between  this  conception  of  God  and  nature  and 
Goethe's  philosophy.  If  he  is  to  follow  Goethe, 
this  ancient  extramundane,  ever-interfering  Deity 
must  be  given  up  without  the  least  attempt  at 
compromise. 

Thus  Haeckel's  position  was  incomparably  more 
radical  than  Darwin's  from  the  very  first.  He  no 
longer  believed  in  a  Creator,  either  in  whole  or 
part. 

He  asked  himself,  therefore,  how  he  could  now 
explain  certain  things  in  nature.  He  had  learned 
from  the  great  Johannes  Miiller  that  species  were 
unchangeable,  and  it  was  impossible  to  conceive 
the  spontaneous  generation  of  the  living  from  the 
dead.  The  essence,  the  predominant  element 
of  the  living  thing  was  the  mysterious,  purposive 
"vital  force."  The  first  of  these  three  ideas  of 
the  master's  to  be  surrendered  entirely  by  him  was 
the  vital  force.  Even  in  Miiller's  lifetime,  and  in 
his  own  laboratory,  so  to  say,  his  pupil,  Du  Bois- 
Reymond,  made  the  first  great  breach  in  the 
doctrine  with  his  famous  study  of  animal 
electricity,  a  really  pioneer  piece  of  work,  especially 


136  HAECKEL 

as  regards  method,  at  that  tirae.  It  was  now 
more  than  ever  probable  that  there  was  no  more  a 
special  vital  force  besides  the  simple  natural  forces 
than  there  was  a  God  distinct  from  nature.  The 
animal  or  the  plant  was  a  wonderful  outcome  of 
the  same  laws  that  had  built  the  crystal  or  the 
globe.  The  sharp  distinction  between  living  and 
dead  matter  fell  into  the  waste-basket,  where  so 
many  other  Dualistic  tags  lay,  cut  off  by  the 
shears  of  science. 

But  if  one  of  Miiller's  theses  was  abandoned, 
another  was  retained  as  a  real  blessing  with  all  the 
more  tenacity  by  his  pupils — the  thesis  that  even 
the  scientific  investigator  shall  always  ^^  think" — 
nay,  even  "  philosophise."  Miiller  called  it  *' using 
one's  imagination,"  in  his  desire  to  emphasise  it. 
Now  it  was  certainly  a  fair  philosophic  deduction 
from  Du  Bois-Eeymond's  discoveries  that  one 
ought  no  longer  to  be  so  rigid  as  regards  the 
possibility  of  spontaneous  generation.  If  the 
same  natural  forces  are  at  work  in  the  organic 
and  the  inorganic,  the  living  and  the  dead,  it  is 
no  longer  inconceivable  theoretically  that  life  and 
inorganic  matter  only  differ  in  degree,  not  in  kind. 
The  distinction  might  become  so  slender — either 
now,  or  at  least  in  past  times — that  an  apparent 
*'  spontaneous  generation  "  might  really  take  place. 

Here  again,  it  is  plain,  Haeckel  had  a  greater 
freedom  than  Darwin.  Working  gradually  from 
above,  Darwin  desisted  when  he  came  to  spon- 
taneous generation,  and  left  room  for  G-od. 
Haeckel  came  into  an  open  field,  believing   that 


DARWIN  137 

\here  was  no  eternal  Deity  and  that  spontaneous 
generation  itself  was  by  no  means  a  forbidding 
conception.  The  problem  for  him  was  merely, 
hew  he  could  work  upward  through  the  plants  and 
animals  of  all  geological  periods  until  he  reached 
man.  He  was  bound  to  seek  to  dispense  even 
here  with  the  historical  vital  force,  and  explain 
everything  by  the  great  natural  laws  of  the 
cosmos. 

It  was  in  this  frame  of  mind  that  he  received 
Darwin's  book.  Can  it  be  in  the  least  surprising 
that  it  ^*  profoundly  moved"  him.  It  opened  out 
to  him  the  whole  way,  just  as  he  desired  it. 
Miiller's  third  thesis,  the  immutability  of  species, 
broke  down.  But  what  did  it  matter?  It  was 
now  possible  for  the  first  time  to  construct  a 
philosophical  zoology  and  botany  in  Miiller's  sense, 
without  any  vital  force  and  without  God. 

At  the  same  time  this  rapid  and  impulsive 
acceptance  of  Darwin's  theory  was  not  merely  a 
decisive  moment  in  Haeckel's  intellectual  develop- 
ment ;  it  was  bound  to  be,  even  externally,  a  most 
important  step  in  his  career.  The  theistic  con- 
troversy was  forced  on  his  attention.  It  passed 
out  of  the  province  of  his  inmost  life,  that  had 
hitherto  only  been  discussed  in  conversation  with 
intimate  friends,  into  the  professional  work  of  his 
most  serious  and  public  occupation — into  zoology, 
into  the  radiolaria  at  which  he  had  been  working 
for  years. 

We  must  realise  clearly  what  it  must  have 
meant   at   that  time  for  a  young  zoologist,  who 


138  HAECKEL 

wanted  to  do  rigorous  professional  work  and  had 
quickly  decided  to  settle  at  Jena  in  order  to  begin 
his  career  as  an  official  teacher,  to  become  "a 
Darwinian  "  in  conviction  and  open  confessicn. 
It  might  cost  him  both  his  official  position  and  Ms 
scientific  future ;  and  this  at  the  very  moment 
when  he  had  just  secured  them,  or  was  in  a  better 
position  to  secure  them.  We  have  here  for  the 
first  time  the  open  manifestation  of  a  principle  in 
Haeckel's  life  that  he  had  hitherto  only  used 
inwardly,  in  application  to  himself.  The  truth 
must  be  told,  whatever  it  cost.  Shoot  me  dead, 
morally,  materially,  or  bodily,  as  you  will :  but 
you  will  have  to  shoot  the  law  first. 

Darwin's  ominous  book  had  been  available  in 
Bronn's  translation  for  two  years.  The  German 
professional  zoologists,  botanists,  and  geologists 
almost  all  regarded  it  as  absolute  nonsense. 
Agassiz,  Giebel,  Keferstein,  and  so  many  others, 
laughed  until  they  were  red  in  the  face,  like  a 
riotous  first-night  public  that  has  made  up  its 
mind  as  to  the  absurdity  of  the  play  from  the 
first  act,  and  torment  the  author  as  the  cat 
torments  a  mouse.  Then  Haeckel  gave  to  the 
world  his  long-prepared  Monograph  on  the  Badio- 
laria  (1862),  the  work  with  which  he  endeavours 
to  establish — in  fact,  must  establish — his  position 
as  an  exact  investigator,  even  amongst  the 
academic  scholars  of  the  opposite  camp.  All  goes 
very  smoothly  for  many  pages  of  the  work.  A 
few  traces  of  heresy  may  be  detected  about 
page  100.     The  passage  deals  with  the  relation  of 


DARWIN  139 

organ  to  individual,  in  connection  with  the  social 
species  of  radiolaria  that  live  in  communities.  It 
is  a  subject  that  Haeckel  took  up  with  great 
vigour  later  on,  as  we  shall  see.  Here  it  aSords 
him  an  opportunity  to  say  a  word  about  the 
general  fusion  of  things  in  the  w^orld  of  life,  in 
opposition  to  our  rigid  divisions  in  classification. 
Organ  and  individual  pass  into  each  other  without 
any  fixed  limit.  That,  he  says,  is  only  a  repetition 
of  the  relation  of  the  plant  to  the  animal.  We 
cannot  establish  any  fixed  limitations  between 
them.  What  we  set  up  as  such  are  only  man's 
abstractions.  In  nature  itself  we  never  find  these 
subjective  abstract  ideas  of  limitation  *  incor- 
porated purely,  but  always  fading  away  in  gradual 
transitions ;  here,  again,  the  scale  of  organisation 
rises  gradually  from  the  simplest  to  the  most 
complex,  in  a  continuous  development."  How- 
ever, these  are  words  that  might  have  been  written 
by  Schleiden  or  Unger  or  Bronn  before  Darwin's 
time. 

Yet  there  is  something  in  the  work  that  would 
have  been  a  jet  of  ice-cold  water  to  the  Agassizs 
and  Giebels.  This  brilliant  new  ''  Extraordinary 
Professor  of  Zoology  and  Director  of  the  Zoo- 
logical Museum  at  Jena  University,"  as  it  says 
on  the  title-page,  accepts  Darwin  in  a  certain 
unambiguous  passage  late  in  the  text. 

It  is  necessary  to  bring  to  light  once  more 
this  passage,  buried  in  a  work  that  is  not  easily 
accessible,  an  expensive  technical  work  separated 
from  us  by  four  decades  now.     It  is  worth  doing 


140  HAECKEL 

so,  not  only  on  account  of  the  courage  it  displayed 
at  the  time,  but  also  as  a  document  relating  to  the 
great  controversy  of  the  nineteenth  century.  It  is 
found  on  pages  231  and  232,  partly  in  the  text, 
but  for  the  most  part  in  a  note.  Immediately 
after  giving  the  table  of  classification  Haeckel  goes 
on  to  say  :  **  I  cannot  leave  this  general  account 
of  the  relationship  of  the  various  families  of  the 
radiolaria  without  drawing  special  attention  to  the 
numerous  transitional  forms  that  most  intimately  , 
connect  the  different  groups  and  make  it  difficult  j 
to  separate  them  in  classification,  to  some  extent." 
It  is  interesting  to  note  that  in  spite  of  our  very 
defective  knowledge  of  the  radiolaria  it  is  neverthe- 
less possible  to  arrange  ^*  a  fairly  continuous  chain  of 
related  forms."  He  would  like  to  draw  particular 
attention  to  this,  because  *'  the  great  theories  that 
Charles  Darwin  has  lately  put  forward,  in  his 
Origin  of  Species  in  the  Plant  and  Animal  World 
by  Natural  Selection,  or  The  Preservation  of  the 
Imjproved  Baces  in  the  Struggle  for  Life,  and  which 
have  opened  out  a  new  epoch  for  systematic 
biology,  have  given  such  importance  to  the 
question  of  the  affinities  of  organisms  and  to 
proofs  of  continuous  concatenation  that  even  the 
smallest  contribution  towards  the  further  solution 
of  these  problems  must  be  welcome."  He  then 
endeavours  in  the  text,  without  any  more  theo- 
retical observations,  practically  to  construct  a 
^  **  genealogical  tree  of  the  radiolaria,"  the  first  of 
a  large  number  of  such  trees  in  the  future.  He 
takes  as  the  primitive  radiolarian  a  simple  trellis- 


DARWIN  141 

worked  globule  with  centrifugal  radiating  needles, 
embodied  in  the  Heliosjphcera.  *'  At  the  same 
time,"  he  says,  characteristically,  *'  this  does  not 
imply  in  the  least  that  all  the  radiolaria  must 
have  descended  from  this  primitive  form ;  I  merely 
show  that,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  all  these  very 
varied  forms  may  be  derived  from  such  a  common 
fundamental  type."  In  other  words,  once  more, 
it  is  conceivable — a  golden  word  even  long  after- 
wards. The  first  *^  genealogical  tree,"  a  '^  table  of 
the  related  families,  sub-families,  and  genera  of 
the  radiolaria,"  arranged  in  order  from  the  higher 
forms  down,  and  connected  with  lines  and  brackets, 
comes  next.  The  text  deals  thoroughly  with  the 
possibility  of  descent.  This  closes  the  first  and 
general  part  of  the  monograph.  But  there  is  a 
long  note  at  this  point  in  the  text,  where  Darwin's 
title  is  cited,  that  gives  us  his  first  appreciation 
of  Darwin  in  detail.  It  begins  :  "I  cannot  refrain 
from  expressing  here  the  great  admiration  with 
which  Darwin's  able  theory  of  the  origin  of  species 
has  inspired  me.  Especially  as  this  epoch-making 
work  has  for  the  most  part  been  unfavourably 
received  by  our  German  professors  of  science, 
and  seems  in  some  cases  to  have  been  entirely 
misunderstood.  Darwin  himself  desires  his  theory 
to  be  submitted  to  every  possible  test,  and  '  looks 
confidently  to  the  young  workers  who  will  be 
prepared  to  examine  both  sides  of  the  question 
impartially.  Whoever  leans  to  the  view  that 
species  are  changeable  will  do  a  service  to  science 
by  a  conscientious   statement  of  his  conviction; 


142  HAECKEL 

only  in  that  way  can  we  get  rid  of  the  mountain 
of  prejudice  that  at  present  covers  the  subject.' 
I  share  this  view  entirely,"  Haeckel  continues, 
*'  and  on  that  account  feel  that  I  must  express 
here  my  belief  in  the  mutability  of  species  and 
the  real  genealogical  relation  of  all  organisms. 
Although  I  hesitate  to  accept  Darwin's  views  and 
hypotheses  to  the  full  and  to  endorse  the  whole  of 
his  argument,  I  cannot  but  admire  the  earnest, 
scientific  attempt  made  in  his  work  to  explain  all 
the  phenomena  of  organic  nature  on  broad  and 
consistent  principles  and  to  substitute  an  in- 
telligible natural  law  for  unintelligible  miracles. 
There  may  be  more  error  than  truth  in  Darwin's 
theory  in  its  present  form,  as  the  first  attempt 
to  deal  with  the  subject.  Undeniably  important 
as  are  the  principles  of  natural  selection,  the 
struggle  for  life,  the  relation  of  organisms  to  each 
other,  the  divergence  of  characters,  and  all  the 
other  principles  employed  by  Darwin  in  support  of 
his  theory,  it  is,  nevertheless,  quite  possible  that 
there  are  just  as  many  and  important  principles 
still  quite  unknown  to  us  that  have  an  equal  or 
even  greater  influence  on  the  phenomena  of  organic 
nature.  This  is  the  first  great  attempt  to  con- 
struct a  scientific,  physiological  theory  of  the 
development  of  organic  life  and  to  prove  that  the 
physiological  laws  and  the  chemical  and  physical 
forces  that  rule  in  nature  to-day  must  also  have 
been  at  work  in  the  world  of  yesterday."  Haeckel 
then  refers  to  Bronn,  the  translator  of  the  book. 
With  Bronn  he  calls  Darwin's  theoiy  the  fertilised 


DARWIN  143 

egg  from  which  the  truth  will  gradually  develop  ; 
the  pupa  from  which  the  long-sought  natural  law 
will  emerge.  And  he  concludes :  ^'  The  chief 
defect  of  the  Darwinian  theory  is  that  it  throws 
no  light  on  the  origin  of  the  primitive  organism — 
probably  a  simple  cell — from  which  all  the  others 
have  descended.  When  Darwin  assumes  a  special 
creative  act  for  this  first  species,  he  is  not  con- 
sistent and,  I  think,  not  quite  sincere.  However, 
apart  from  these  and  other  defects,  Darwin's 
theory  has  the  undying  merit  of  bringing  sense 
and  reason  into  the  whole  subject  of  the  relations 
of  living  things.  When  we  remember  how  every 
great  reform,  every  important  advance,  meets  with 
a  resistance  in  proportion  to  the  depth  of  the 
prejudices  and  dogmas  it  assails,  we  shall  not  be 
surprised  that  Darwin's  able  theory  has  as  yet  met 
with  little  but  hostility  instead  of  its  well-merited 
appreciation  and  test."  There  is  yet  no  question 
of  man  and  his  origin.  But  what  he  says  is  very 
bold  for  the  time ;  and  before  a  year  is  out  we 
shall  find  him  drawing  the  most  dangerous  con- 
clusion of  all.  And  it  is  found,  not  in  a  late  page 
and  note  in  a  stout  technical  volume,  but  in 
the  pitiless  glare  of  the  sunlight,  in  the  most 
prominent  position  that  could  then  be  given  to  it 
in  German  scientific  culture. 


CHAPTER  V 

THE    SCIENTIFIC    CONGRESS    OF    1863 

IN  the  second  decade  of  the  nineteenth  century, 
Oken  had  inspired  the  formation  of  large 
pubhc  gatherings  of  German  naturalists  and 
physicians.  Oken  was  one  of  the  advanced 
thinkers  who  felt  that  all  technical  science 
was  in  the  end  only  preparatory  to  the  great 
work  of  educating  the  people.  In  his  opinion 
the  naturalist,  even  if  he  spent  his  whole  life 
in  investigating  the  filaments  of  plants  or  the 
limbs  of  insects,  was  a  pioneer  of  culture.  In 
any  case  these  gatherings  were  a  very  good 
practical  move  at  the  time.  In  a  time  of  terrible 
reaction  on  all  sides  a  feeling  came  at  last  even 
to  the  recluse  of  science  that,  besides  the  technical 
value  of  his  work,  it  ought  to  do  something 
towards  lifting  his  fellows  out  of  the  rut  they 
were  falling  into.  They  felt  that  if  all  ideals 
were  going  to  be  lost,  the  ultimate  aim  of 
special  research  would  perish  with  them.  Oken 
took  up  a  position  of  democratic  opposition.  He 
was  soon  joined  by  Alexander  von  Humboldt,  who, 
with  the  same  feeling  at  heart,  gave  the  work  a 

144 


THE    SCIENTIFIC    CONGRESS    OF    1863    145 

certain  polish  of  scientific  and  impartial  dignity. 
There  are  features  of  his  work  that  amuse  us 
to-day,  but  those  were  evil  days,  and  every 
particle  of  goodwill  had  to  be  appreciated. 
However,  there  was  a  serious  difficulty. 

The  bolder  elements  met  in  congresses,  and 
encouraged  each  other  in  the  pursuit  of  their 
ideal.  But  it  at  once  became  clear  in  their 
public  discussions  that  some  of  their  purely 
scientific  discoveries  were  dangerous  and  heretical 
in  such  a  period  of  reaction.  This  or  that  had 
hitherto  been  buried  innocently  in  scientific  mono- 
graphs, quite  unknown  to  the  crowd,  and  the 
author  might  be  a  royal  councillor,  receive  decora- 
tions, and  almost  be  an  elder  of  the  Church. 
Suddenly,  by  means  of  these  assemblies,  the  sin- 
fulness of  all  this  lore  about  snails  or  insects  or 
vertebrates  was  brought  to  light  and  put  before 
the  profane  public,  and  there  was  much  anger. 
The  whole  of  scientific  research  was  full  of  secret 
plots,  heresies,  and  bombs — against  God. 

There  was  a  most  appalling  illustration  of  this 
in  the  Scientific  Congress,  held  in  September,  1863. 
Nothing  is  more  amusing  to-day  than  to  run 
through  the  yellow  and  almost  unknown  papers 
of  the  Congress.  They  are  illuminating  to  some 
extent.  An  idea  that  belongs  to  humanity  is 
openly  brought  into  the  debate  for  the  first  time. 
Ages  lie  behind  this  hour.  We  must  grant  all 
that  savours  of  human  comedy,  of  triviality  even, 
in  such  an  assembly,  but  after  all  we  must  see 
in  it  the  swell  and  clash  of  great  waves.     Haeckel 

10 


146  HAECKEL 

spoke  for  the  first  time  on  Darwin's  theory,  at  a 
spot  from  which  the  waves  were  bound  to  spread 
through  the  whole  scientific  culture  of  the  land. 
Virchow,  afterwards  his  bitter  opponent,  supported 
him.     All  the  deepest  questions  and  consequences 
of  Darwinism  were  mooted  with  the  first  vibrant 
accents.     It  was  a  great  and  unforgettable  hour. 
The  first  speaker  at  the  Congress  on  the  Sunday 
V       evening,  September  19,  1863,  was  Haeckel.     We 
must  remember  the  charm  that  attached  to  his 
person  even  outwardly,  the  direct  charm  that  did 
not   need  any  allusion   to  his  growing  repute  in 
zoology.     It  was  the  charm   that   had   been   felt 
by  the  simple  folk  of  uncultured  Italy,  who  had 
never  heard  even  the  name  of  the  science.    Darwin 
was   never   a  handsome   man   from   the   aesthetic 
point  of  view.     When  he  wanted  to  sail  with  Fitz- 
Koy,  it   was   a  very  near   question   whether  the 
splenetic   captain   would   not  reject  him   because 
he  did  not  like  his  nose.     His   forehead  had  so 
striking  a  curve  that  Lombroso,  the  expert,  could 
put  him  down  as  having  ^^  the  idiot-physiognomy  " 
in  his  Genius  and  Insanity.     At  the  time  when 
he  wrote  the  Origin  of  Sjpecies  he   had  not  the 
patriarchal  beard  that    is   inseparable    from    his 
image  in  our  minds  ;  he  was  bald,  and  his  chin 
clean  shaved.     The  prematurely  bent  form  of  the 
invalid  could  never  have  had  much  effect  in  such 
a  place,  no  matter  what  respect  was  felt  for  him. 
Haeckel,  young  and  handsome,  was   an  embodi- 
ment of  the  mens  sana  in  corpore  sano.     He  rose 
above  the  grey  heads  of  science,  as  the  type  of 


THE    SCIENTIFIC    CONGRESS    OF    1863    147 

the  young,  fresh,  brilliant  generation.  It  was  an 
opponent  at  this  Congress,  who  sharply  attacked 
the  new  ideas,  that  spoke  of  the  "  colleague  in 
the  freshness  of  youth  "  who  had  brought  forward 
the  subject.  He  brought  with  him  the  highest 
thing  that  a  new  idea  can  associate  with :  the 
breath  of  a  new  generation,  of  a  youth  that  greets 
all  new  ideas  with  a  smiling  courage.  Behind 
this  was  the  thought  of  Darwin  himself,  a  wave 
that  swept  away  all  dams. 

The  speech  was  as  clear  as  crystal,  and  is  still 
useful  as  an  introduction  to  the  Darwinian 
question.  He  at  once  strikes  the  greatest  and  the 
dominant  note.  Darwin  means  a  new  philosophy. 
All  organisms  descend  from  a  few  primitive  forms, 
possibly  from  one ;  and  man  is  one  of  these 
organisms.  What  Darwin  had  merely  hinted  in 
his  concluding  passage,  what  the  aged  Bronn  had 
excluded  altogether  from  his  translation  as  too 
dangerous,  was  now  set  forth  emphatically  in  the 
very  beginning  of  his  speech.  **As  regards  man 
himself,  if  we  are  consistent  we  must  recognise 
his  immediate  ancestors  in  ape-like  mammals ; 
earlier  still  in  kangaroo-like  marsupials ;  beyond 
these,  in  the  secondary  period,  in  lizard-like 
reptiles  ;  and  finally,  at  a  yet  earlier  stage,  the 
primary  period,  in  lowly  organised  fishes." 

There  is  something  monumental  in  this  passage, 
as  in  the  previous  confession  of  Darwinism  in  the 
Monograjpli  on  the  Badiolaria.  Others  may  have 
come  to  similar  conclusions  at  the  time  on  reading 
Darwin's    work.     Here    we    have    the    profession 


148  HAECKEL 

made  at  the  psychological  moment,  a  trumpet- 
blast  that  sent  its  thrilling  alarm  from  the 
threshold  of  a  new  age,  for  friend  or  foe  to  hear. 
The  speech  gives  a  slightly  exaggerated  account 
of  the  struggle  that  already  existed.  All  was  in 
confusion.  Science  was  breaking  up  into  two 
camps.  On  the  one  side  evolution  and  progress, 
on  the  other  the  creation  and  immutability  of 
species.  Already  there  are  distinguished  leaders 
of  science  in  favour  of  evolution.  It  is  time  to 
discuss  the  matter  in  full  publicity — and  the  thing 
is  done. 

There  was,  let  me  say  parenthetically,  on  the 
Continent  at  least  no  question  at  that  time  of 
this  clear  division,  or  even  of  a  serious  agitation. 
It  was  partly  this  speech,  together  with  Haeckel's 
next  work,  that  was  to  bring  it  about.  To  the 
highest  authorities  the  subject  seemed  to  be  below 
the  level  of  discussion.  We  must  recall  a 
passage  that  the  Professor  of  Zoology  at  Gottin- 
gen,  Keferstein,  had  written  a  year  before  in  the 
Gottinger  Gelehrte  Anzeiger,  **  It  gives  great 
satisfaction  to  the  earnest  scientific  worker,"  we 
read,  **to  see  a  man  like  Agassiz,  with  an 
authority  based  on  the  finest  zoological  works, 
reject  unreservedly  a  theory  [Darwin's]  that 
would  discredit  the  whole  work  of  classifiers  for 
a  century,  and  to  see  that  the  views  built  up  by 
several  generations  and  the  general  consent  of 
humanity  hold  a  stronger  position  than  the  views 
of  a  single  individual,  however  eloquently  they 
may  be  stated."     There  is  no  idea  in  this  of  two 


THE    SCIENTIFIC    CONGRESS    OF    1863    149 

regular  camps  of  scientists.  Humanity  is  adduced 
as  the  one  party ;  against  it  stands  the  anarchist, 
trying  to  blow  up  the  work  of  centuries,  Darwin. 
But  that  gave  no  concern  to  the  young  orator; 
he  saw  a  whole  decade  of  success  in  the  first 
attack. 

He  rolled  o2  geology.  Cuvier's  theory  of 
catastrophes,  Linne's  belief  in  the  immutability 
of  species — all  a  purely  theological  cosmogony. 
The  *'  philosophical  theory  of  evolution "  rises 
behind  it  like  a  Mene  Tekel  Pharshim. 

All  living  things,  including  those  of  past 
geological  epochs,  form  one  great  genealogical  tree. 
The  word,  the  new  leading  word  for  zoology  and 
botany,  comes  out  with  a  flash.  What  is  the 
system  that  has  been  awaited  so  long  ?  It  is 
the  genealogical  tree  of  life  on  our  planet.  Its 
roots  lie  deep  in  the  remote  past.  *'The  thousands 
of  green  leaves  on  the  tree  that  clothe  the  younger 
and  fresher  twigs,  and  differ  in  their  height  and 
breadth  from  the  trunk,  correspond  to  the  living 
species  of  animals  and  plants ;  these  are  the  more 
advanced,  the  further  they  are  removed  from  the 
primeval  stem.  The  withered  and  faded  leaves, 
that  we  see  on  the  older  and  dead  twigs,  represent 
the  many  extinct  species  that  dwelt  on  the  earth 
in  earlier  geological  ages,  and  come  closer  to  the 
primeval  simple  stem-form,  the  more  remote  they 
are  from  us." 

This  was  the  great  new  idea  for  science  to 
work  upon.  Paleontology,  the  science  of  past 
life,  found   at   last   a   common  task  with  botany 


150  HAECKEL 

and  zoology.  Haeckel's  own  programme  for 
decades  was  unfolded.  This  phrase,  too,  was  a 
birth-hour.  In  all  the  struggle  that  has  followed 
as  to  the  ^^  how  "  of  evolution  this  figure  of  the 
tree  with  the  verdant  branches  as  the  new  field 
of  zoological  and  botanical  work,  and  the  withered 
branches  for  the  paleontologist,  has  never  been 
abandoned.  A  symbol  from  the  living  world  itself, 
the  branching  tree,  had  at  last  taken  a  decisive 
place  in  the  science  and  the  classification  of 
living  things.  With  splendid  clearness  the  speech 
then  enumerates  the  Darwinian  principles  :  varia- 
tion, heredity,  the  struggle  for  life,  selection,  and 
adaptation.  A  vast  duration  is  claimed  for  the 
geological  epochs  in  the  sense  of  Lyell ;  and  it 
is  pointed  out  that  there  is  a  progressive  advance 
of  forms  throughout  these  periods.  Special  stress 
is  laid  on  the  ever-advancing,  ever-uplifting 
element  in  evolution.  Man  is  again  introduced 
into  the  subject.  He  has  "evolved"  from  the 
brutality  of  the  animal.  Language  itself  has  been 
naturally  "  developed."  (What  a  shrewd  per- 
spective in  such  a  brief  phrase !  How  the 
philologists  would  stare !)  So  the  '^  law  of 
advance  "  traverses  the  whole  field  of  culture.  A 
fiery  passage  follows  :  "  Keaction  in  political, 
social,  moral,  and  scientific  life,  such  as  the 
selfish  efforts  of  priests  and  despots  have  brought 
about  at  every  period  of  history,"  cannot  per- 
manently hinder  this  advance.  The  "  advance  " 
is  '*  a  law  of  nature,"  and  "  neither  the  weapons 
of  the   tyrant   nor  the   anathemas   of  the  priest 


THE    SCIENTIFIC    CONGRESS    OF    1863    151 

can  ever  suppress  it."  We  hear  again  the  older 
Sethe  thundering  his  intrepid  reply:  '^  You  will 
have  to  shoot  the  law  first." 

At  the  close  he  glances  briefly  at  the  difficulties 
the  theory  presents.  We  must  regard  even  the 
first  beginnings  of  life  as  the  outcome  of 
**  evolution."  Naturally.  Darwin's  God  has  no 
use  for  this  prophet.  But  how  shall  we  conceive 
it  ?  Was  the  thing  that  first  developed  from  the 
inorganic  "a  simple  cell,  such  a  being  as  those 
that  now  exist  in  such  numbers  as  independent 
beings  on  the  ambiguous  frontier  of  the  animal 
and  vegetal  worlds  ?  "  Or  was  it  a  particle  of 
plasm  merely,  ^'  like  certain  amoeboid  organisms 
that  do  not  seem  to  have  attained  yet  the 
organisation  of  a  cell "  ?  Again'  the  simple 
question  contained  a  whole  programme. 

Schleiden  had  first  shown  in  1838  that  the 
body  of  any  plant  can  be  dissolved  into  tiny 
living  corpuscles,  which  he  called  *'  cells,"  because 
they  often  had  the  appearance  of  a  filled  honey- 
comb. A  year  later  Schwann  proved,  in  Johannes 
Miiller's  laboratory,  that  the  higher  animal  also 
is  a  product  of  these  cells.  The  cell  was  re- 
cognised as  the  living  unit  that  composed  the 
oak  and  the  rose,  the  elephant  and  the  worm. 
Man  himself,  in  fine,  was  but  a  pyramid  of  these 
cells — or,  to  speak  more  accurately  (as  each  cell 
has  its  own  life),  an  immense  community  of  cells, 
a  cell-state. 

Yirchow  had,  as  we  saw,  laid  the  greatest  stress 
on   this  last  and  most  important  deduction   from 


152  HAECKEL 

the  cell-theory  a  short  time  before.  He  looked 
upon  every  individual  man  as  a  mysterious  plurality 
— a  plurality  of  cells.  Pathology,  the  science  of 
disease,  must  take  account  of  this.  Health  was 
the  harmonious  co-operation  of  the  cell-state; 
disease  was  the  falling-away  of  some  of  the  cells 
to  special  work  that  injured  or  destroyed  the  whole 
community.  This  conception  had  inaugurated  a 
new  epoch  in  medicine,  making  it  a  consciously 
ministering  art  in  the  service  of  the  living  human 
natural  organism.  The  Darwinian  had  now  the 
task  of  showing  the  validity  of  this  conception  in 
his  own  province.  The  genealogical  tree  of  the 
animals  and  plants  must  at  once  be  drawn  up  in  the 
form  of  a  genealogical  tree  of  the  cell.  The  cells  had 
combined  to  form  higher  and  higher  communities, 
and  each  higher  species  of  animal  or  plant  was  in 
reality  one  of  these  social  constructions.  But  this 
complexity  was  only  found  in  the  upper  branches. 
The  lower  we  descend,  the  simpler  we  find 
organisms.  The  lowest  forms  of  life  represent 
cruder,  simpler,  and  more  primitive  cell-structures. 
And  the  final  conclusion  was  that  all  the  cell- 
communities  or  states  must  have  been  evolved 
from  unattached  individuals  whose  whole  body 
consisted  of  a  single  cell.  We  cannot  strictly  call 
these  lowest  forms  of  life  either  animals  or  plants ; 
they  can  only  be  likened  to  the  single  cell. 
Though  Haeckel  himself  did  not  know  it  at  the 
time,  all  his  pretty  radiolaria  at  Messina  belonged 
to  this  category.  The  whole  swarm  of  bacilli  and 
bacteria  fell  into  this  world  of  the  ''unicellulars." 


THE    SCIENTIFIC    CONGRESS    OF    1863    153 

Haeckel's  words  threw  a  brilliant  light  on  the 
question.  Not  only  the  simplest  forms  of  life  are 
unicellulars ;  the  primitive  forms  also  were.  With 
them  began  the  colossal  genealogical  tree  that 
branches  out  through  the  millions  of  years  of  the 
earth's  history.  If  anything  on  the  earth  has 
arisen  by  spontaneous  generation  out  of  dead 
matter,  at  the  commencement  of  all  life,  it  must 
have  been  a  cell,  or  a  still  simpler  particle  of 
living  plasm  more  or  less  resembling  one.  It  is 
true  that  the  point  is  put  in  the  form  of  a  question ; 
but  the  veil  has  been  torn  away.  Given  one  cell, 
the  whole  genealogical  tree  grows  on,  in  virtue  of 
Darwin's  laws,  until  it  reaches  its  highest  point 
in  man. 

The  conclusion  of  the  speech  greets  Darwin  as 
the  Newton  of  the  organic  world,  a  phrase  that 
has  often  been  repeated  since. 

•  ••••• 

Let  us  turn  over  a  few  pages  more  in  the  faded 
record  of  the  sitting.  Fourteen  years  later  he 
would  speak  again  at  a  scientific  congress,  and 
speak  on  Darwinism.  He  would  then  put  it 
forward  no  longer  as  a  hope  but  a  fulfilment,  of 
which  he  showed  one  glittering  facet.  And  no 
other  than  Eudolf  Virchow,  his  former  teacher, 
would  oppose  him  and  deliver  his  famous  speech 
on  the  freedom  of  science  in  the  modern  State 
and  its  abuse  by  Darwin's  followers.  This  was 
at  Munich  in  1877.  The  least  of  his  hearers 
would  remember  that  Virchow  had  spoken,  like 
Haeckel,    at    Stettin    fourteen    years    previously. 


154  HAECKEL 

But  we  must  understand  the  thirty-sixth  speech 
if  we  are  to  understand  the  thirty-seventh. 

It  was  the  second  sitting,  on  September  22nd. 
Virchow  spoke  on  '^the  alleged  materialism  of 
modern  science."  The  subject  was  not  provoked 
by  Haeckel,  but  by  Schleiden,  the  botanist,  the 
parent  of  the  cell-theory.  The  controversy  over 
materialism  had  raged  furiously  for  many  years. 
We  need  only  mention  Biichner  (whose  Force  and 
Matter  appeared  in  1855)  and  Carl  Vogt.  There 
was  an  element  of  necessity,  but  a  good  deal  of 
superficiality  in  the  controversy,  as  it  was  then 
conducted.  Friedrich  Albert  Lange  has  given  us 
a  masterly  history  of  it.  At  this  moment  it  was 
particularly  instructive  to  point  out  the  difference 
between  general  philosophical  skirmishing  with 
words  and  a  really  able  piece  of  work  that,  though 
it  had  a  technical  look,  suddenly  added  a  new 
province  to  philosophy  on  which  every  doubting 
Thomas  could  lay  his  hands.  However,  Schleiden 
had  not  advanced.  Curiously  enough,  he,  the 
first  discoverer  of  the  cell,  attacked  Virchow's 
theory  of  man  as  a  cell-state  as  a  typical  materialist 
extravagance. 

He  had  published  a  heated  essay,  and  Virchow 
defended  himself.  He  gave  such  a  remarkable 
and  characteristic  expression  of  his  inmost  feelings 
that  it  is  worth  while  disinterring  it.  It  is  a  very 
rare  thing  for  a  thoughtful  man  to  give  a  natural 
philosophical  speech  that  begins  with  crystalline 
clearness  of  logic  and  then  makes  a  most  curious 
salto  mortale  at  the  critical  point. 


Ernst  Haeckel,  1880. 
Reproduced  from  the  Natiirliche  Schopfutigsgeschichte. 


To  face  p.  154. 


THE    SCIENTIFIC    CONGRESS    OF    1863    155 

He  opens  with  a  vigorous  protest  that  there 
can  be  no  quarrel  about  the  materiaHsm  of  science 
with  the  "  spiritual "  and  the  "privately-orthodox.'* 
Such  people  must  regard  all  investigation  of  "this 
world"  as  aimless.  The  only  thing  of  value  for 
them  is  "the  next  world";  the  best  attitude 
towards  this  life  is  as  crass  an  ignorance  as 
possible,  and  so  all  science  is  worthless.  The 
words  are  so  sharp  that  he  was  interrupted  and 
had  to  explain  that  he  was  not  attacking  anybody 
personally.  He  was  only  speaking  "with  the 
candour  of  a  scientific  worker,  who  is  in  the  habit 
of  calling  things  by  their  proper  names."  (At  this 
point  there  was  some  applause.)  Hence  he  is  not 
speaking  of  materialism,  he  says,  on  that  account, 
but  because  of  certain  objections  from  men  of 
science,  who  said  that  philosophic  speculation  led 
us  out  of  our  way.  Schleiden  had  branded  the 
theory  of  man  as  a  cell-state,  the  conception  of 
man  as,  not  an  absolute,  but  a  federal  unity,  as 
materialism.  But  this  conception  is  not  a  philo- 
sophical theory  at  all ;  it  is  a  fact.  It  is  a  piece 
of  scientific  truth,  like  the  law  of  gravitation.  He 
recurred  to  the  old  and  often-quoted  definition  : 
the  kind  of  research  that  brings  such  facts  to  light 
has  nothing  whatever  to  do  with  philosophy.  On 
the  other  hand,  "materialism,"  in  so  far  as  it 
expresses  a  general  theory  of  the  world,  is  a 
philosophy.  Hence  the  simple  investigation  of 
facts  as  such  can  neither  be  dubbed  materialistic 
nor  said  to  have  a  philosophic  tinge. 

There    are    many     objections     to     this    strict 


156  HAECKEL 

delimitation  of  the  provinces  of  the  human  mind, 
as  Virchow  lays  it  down  in  the  old  style.  It  is 
true  that  materialism  is  a  real  philosophy,  especially 
in  the  form  current  at  the  time  and  given  to  it  by 
Vogt  and  Biichner.  But  it  is  a  question  whether 
we  see,  observe,  or  investigate  at  all,  if  we  com- 
pletely exclude  philosophy;  whether  the  philosophic 
thought  can  be  really  pumped  out  of  even  the  most 
rigorous  and  exact  '^  observation  of  facts,"  like  air 
in  the  air-pump ;  whether  there  are  any  such 
things  as  purely  objective  ^^ facts"  in  this  sense 
in  any  human  brain.  And  it  is  also  a  question 
whether  the  facts,  however  objectively  we  regard 
them,  do  not  arrange  themselves,  when  they  are 
numerous,  in  logical  series,  which  force  us  to  draw 
conclusions  as  to  the  unknown  by  the  very  laws  of 
probability;  in  other  words,  whether  they  do  not 
always  produce  a  **  philosophy  "  in  the  long  run. 
However,  these  questions  are  all  well  within  the 
pure  atmosphere  of  science.  It  is  Virchow's 
practical  conclusions  that  are  interesting ;  and  he 
goes  on  to  draw  them  freely. 

The  man  of  science  gives  us  no  dogmatic 
philosophy  of  any  kind,  but  facts.  But  for  these 
facts  and  for  the  research  that  leads  to  them  he 
must  have  an  absolutely  free  path.  No  power  can 
legitimately  stand  in  his  way  that  does  not  oSer 
him  more  of  what  he  regards  as  his  palladium — 
facts.  And,  curiously  enough,  when  we  think  of 
later  events,  the  illustration  that  Virchow  takes 
in  1863  to  enforce  this  is — the  Darwinism  that 
Haeckel  had  just  put  before  them. 


THE    SCIENTIFIC    CONGRESS    OF    1863    157 

Haeckel  and  Virchow  were  friendly  colleagues 
at  the  time.     We  have  already  said  that  Haeckel 
was  Virchow's  assistant  at  Wiirtzburg.     Not  only 
as  a  man,  but  especially  as  a  scientist,  Virchow 
was  then  (and  long  afterwards)  greatly  admired  by 
him.      The    idea   of   the   cell-state   got   into    his 
blood;  it  was  one  of  the  bases  on  which  he  built 
up  the  Darwinian  theory.     Though  he  had  never 
recognised    this    distinction    between    the    mere 
investigation   of   facts   and  philosophic  reflection 
on  them,  he  respected  Virchow   as  a   master   of 
methodological  education.     What  was  '^  method  '' 
at  the   bottom   but    philosophy!      Was    not   the 
method  that  expressly  excluded  ^^  miracles,"  that 
sought   always   the  natural  law   and  the   causal 
connection      and      the      continuous      series,      a 
"philosophy"?       This     was    the    only    method 
taught  under  Virchow  as  long  as  Haeckel  worked 
with  him.     At  the  time  the  divergence  of  their 
ideas    was    not    shown  more   openly.      The   one 
called   "  philosophy "   what   the   other    said    was 
**the   purely   objective    method    of    investigating 
the  truth."     The  figure  of  Pilate  rises  up  behind 
the  dilemma  with  his  question  :  "What  is  truth?" 
However,  Virchow  takes  Darwinism  by  way  of 
an  example  of  which  he  approves,   a  point  that 
seems  to  be  established  in  the   province   of  pure 
facts.     In  the  Munich  speech  of   1877  there  are 
polite  references  to  "Herr  Haeckel."     "As  Herr 
Haeckel   says."      "As   Herr  Haeckel   supposes." 
At   Stettin   we   find  Herr   Haeckel   described   as 
"my  friend  Haeckel,"  with  whom  "I  quite  agree," 


158  HAECKEL 

&c.  Haeckel  himself,  by  the  way,  was  still 
convinced — in  his  essay  On  the  Generation  of 
Waves  in  Living  F articles — two  years  before  the 
schismatic  Council  of  1877  that  Virchow  had  had 
a  decisive  influence  on  his  own  Darwinian  career. 
**  If  I  have  contributed  anything  myself  in  an 
elementary  way  to  the  building-up  of  the  idea  of 
evolution,  I  owe  it  for  the  most  part  to  the  cellular- 
biological  views  with  which  Virchow's  teaching 
penetrated  me  twenty  years  ago."  *'  As  Herr 
Haeckel  supposes,"  was  the  cool  repayment  of 
this  sincere  expression  of  gratitude.  However, 
that  is  another  matter.  Let  us  return  to  Stettin. 
We  read,  where  **my  friend  Haeckel"  comes  in, 
that  he  has  shown  how  scientific  research  (the 
pure  investigation  of  facts  without  the  least 
tincture  of  philosophy)  has  gone  on  to  deal  with 
^*  the  great  question  of  the  creation  of  man."  It 
is  merely  conceded  that  there  are  still  certain 
small  outstanding  difiiculties,  as,  for  instance,  at 
the  root  of  the  genealogical  tree.  According  to 
Darwin  it  is  conceivable  that  there  were  four  or 
five  primitive  forms  of  life.  Haeckel  is  inclined 
to  restrict  them  to  a  single  stem-cell.  It  seems 
to  him  (Yirchow)  that  there  may  have  been  a 
number  of  different  beginnings  of  life.  We  have 
here  the  opening  of  the  controversy  as  to  the 
monophyletic  (from  one  root  only)  or  polyphyletic 
(from  several  roots)  development  of  life,  which  is 
still  unsettled  as  far  as  the  commencement  of  life 
is  concerned,  but  a  very  secondary  question.  It 
would  be  well  if  there  had  never  been  any  more 


THE    SCIENTIFIC    CONGRESS    QF    1863    159 

serious  difference  between  Haeckel  and  Yirchow. 
The  speaker  himself  thinks  it  an  unimportant 
matter  beside  the  great  question  of  freedom  for 
scientific  inquiry.  One  thing  is  as  clear  to  him 
as  it  is  to  Haeckel.  The  biblical  dogma  of  creation 
has  broken  down.  It  is  impossible  to  take  seriously 
any  longer  the  breathing  of  the  breath  of  life  into 
a  lump  of  clay,  if  these  Darwinian  ideas  are  sound. 
Once  it  is  fully  proved  that  man  descends  from 
the  ape,  "  no  tradition  in  the  world  will  ever 
suppress  the  fact."  Scientific  inquiry  alone  can 
correct  itself.  And  what  it  holds  to  be  established 
must  be  respected  beyond  its  frontiers  as  well. 
What  does  he  mean  by  *' beyond  its  frontiers"? 
He  means,  as  he  makes  it  clear  here,  the  same  as 
Haeckel  himself.  *^  Church  and  State,"  he  says, 
must  *^  reconcile  themselves  to  the  fact  that  with 
the  advance  of  science  certain  changes  are  bound 
to  take  place  in  the  general  ideas  and  beliefs  from 
which  we  build  up  our  highest  conceptions,  and 
that  no  impediment  must  be  put  in  the  way  of 
these  changes ;  in  fact,  the  far-seeing  Government 
and  the  open-minded  Church  will  always  assimilate 
these  advancing  and  developing  ideas  and  make 
them  fruitful."     What  more  do  we  want  ? 

If  this  were  the  conclusion  of  Virchow's  speech, 
it  would  be  merely  a  confirmation  of  Haeckel's — 
the  kind  of  support  that  the  older  worker  can  give 
to  ardent  youth,  though  on  different  grounds.  But 
the  cloven  foot  has  still  to  peep  out.  I  believe 
that,  in  the  pure  struggle  of  ideas,  we  can  determine 
here,  in  1863,  precisely  the  point  where  Virchow 


160  HAECKEL 

falls — falls  into  a  line  that  has  nothing  in  common 
with  the  ideal  struggle  of  the  really  free  and 
liberating  thought  of  humanity.  We  come  to  the 
great  salto  mortale,  which  one  must  see  from  1863 
onward  in  order  to  understand  the  Virchow  of  1877. 

The  passage  is  the  more  interesting  as  it  refers 
to  one  of  the  chief  stages  in  the  development  of 
HaeckeFs  mind.  The  conception  of  man  as  a  cell- 
state,  established  by  Virchow  in  so  masterly  a 
fashion,  involved  a  very  curious  conclusion.  This 
conclusion,  however  we  take  it,  came  so  close  to 
the  roots  of  every  philosophy  that  it  justified 
Schleiden  to  some  extent  when  he  protested  that 
the  whole  cell-state  theory  was  a  philosophical 
element. 

If  the  human  body  is  composed  of  millions 
of  cells ;  if  all  the  processes  and  functions,  the 
whole  life  of  the  body  in  Virchow's  sense,  are 
merely  the  sum  of  the  vital  processes  and  functions 
of  these  millions  of  individual  cells;  is  not  what 
we  call  '^  the  soul  "  really  the  product  of  the 
millions  upon  millions  of  separate  souls  of  these 
cells  ?  Is  not  man's  soul  merely  the  state-soul, 
the  general  spirit  of  this  gigantic  complex  of 
tiny  cell-souls  ?  The  lowest  living  things  we 
spoke  of,  which  consist  of  a  single  cell,  showed 
unmistakable  signs  of  having  a  psychic  life. 
There  was  nothing  to  prevent  us  from  thinking 
that  in  the  combination  of  these  various  cells 
into  communities  each  of  them  brought  with 
it  its  little  psychic  individuality.  And  just  as 
the  individual  bodies  of  the   cells   combined  ex- 


THE    SCIENTIFIC    CONGRESS    OF    1863     IGl 

ternally  to  form  the  new  individual  of  the  human 
body,  so  the  cell-souls  would  enter  into  a  spiritual 
combination  to  form  the  new  psychic  individuality 
of  the  human  mind.  I  say  there  was  nothing 
to  prevent  us  from  thinking  this,  in  the  line  of 
deductions  from  the  plain  principles  of  the  cell- 
state  theory  which  Virchow  claimed  to  be  a  naked 
**fact."  Philosophically,  however,  an  immense 
number  of  questions,  problems,  doubts,  and  hopes 
lurked  behind  it.  The  whole  conception  of  indi- 
viduality took  on  a  new  aspect.  First,  in  the 
material  sense ;  the  individual  human  being 
seemed  to  be,  bodily,  only  the  connecting  bracket, 
as  it  were,  of  countless  deeper  individuals,  the 
cells.  But  it  was  more  significant  on  the  spiritual 
side.  The  individual  human  soul  could  be  ana- 
lysed into  millions  of  smaller  psychic  individu- 
alities, the  cell-souls,  of  which  it  was  the  sum. 
The  unified  ego,  the  consciousness  of  self  and 
unity  of  the  psychic  clamp,  "  man,"  remained 
as  the  connection  of  all  the  cell-souls.  A  ray 
of  light  was  thrown  on  the  deep  mystery  of  the 
origin  of  individualities,  material  and  spiritual. 
Haeckel  devoted  himself  afterwards  to  the  question 
with  all  his  energy.  But  at  the  time  it  was 
Virchow  who,  unconsciously  enough,  started  the 
great  wave  that  welled  up  from  the  depths  of 
his  theory. 

He  had  marked  out  his  path  very  clearly  in 
the  first  part  of  his  speech.  Scientific  research 
collects  facts.  It  puts  them  before  us  without 
any  reference  to  philosophy.     The  less  philosophy 

11 


162  HAECKEL 

there  is  in  the  investigation  of  facts  the  better. 
But  the  other  side  of  the  matter  is  that  no  power 
in  heaven  or  on  earth  has  anything  to  say  as 
regards  its  work  on  things  that  it  holds  to  be  facts. 
The  only  possible  logical  conclusion  from  this, 
with  reference  to  the  question  of  the  cell-soul, 
was  for  the  investigator  of  facts  to  say :  Even  in 
respect  of  the  psychic  life  we  go  our  way  and 
look  neither  to  right  nor  left,  whatever  conclusions 
and  assumptions  the  philosopher  makes.  Virchow 
acted  very  differently. 

He  first  grants  that  this  dissolution  of  man 
into  a  federal  unity  of  countless  cells  must  some- 
how affect  the  "  unified  soul."  We  are  compelled 
''  to  set  up  a  plurality  even  in  the  psychic  life." 
He  has  reached  the  limit  of  his  radicalism.  We 
expect  him  to  continue :  Hence,  as  in  the  case 
of  the  Mosaic  story  of  creation,  of  Darwinism,  of 
the  cell-theory  as  a  whole,  so  here  we  men  of 
science  go  our  way  unmoved;  even  if  the  whole 
of  the  teaching  that  has  hitherto  prevailed  in 
philosophy  and  theology  in  regard  to  the  soul 
breaks  down,  we  simply  go  our  way,  and  do 
not  ask  anybody's  permission.  This  he  does 
not  do.  Take  one  step  further,  he  says,  and 
we  ''can  easily  believe  that  it  is  necessary  to 
split  up  our  whole  psychic  life  in  this  way  and 
ascribe  a  soul  to  each  individual  cell."  Haeckel 
believed  a  little  later  that  this  was  necessary ; 
that  the  most  rigorous  logic  compelled  us  to 
do  it.  But,  says  Virchow  suddenly,  we  must 
protest  most   vigorously  against    this.     This   de- 


THE    SCIENTIFIC    CONGRESS    OF    1863     163 

duction  from  the  cell-state  theory  reaches  a  point 
where  ^^  science  is  incompetent,"  namely,  "the 
facts  of  consciousness."  Taboo !  The  path  of 
the  scientific  inquirer  is  barricaded.  What  follows 
rests  on  no  scientific  grounds,  but  is  a  sort  of 
confession.  Up  to  the  present  natural  science 
has  not  been  able  to  say  anything  as  to  the  real 
nature,  the  locality,  and  the  ground  of  conscious- 
ness. "Hence  I  have  always  said  that  it  is 
wrong  to  refuse  to  recognise  the  peculiar  character 
of  these  facts  of  consciousness  that  dominate 
our  whole  higher  life,  and  to  yield  to  the  personal 
craving  to  bring  these  facts  of  consciousness  into 
accord  with  an  independent  soul,  a  spiritual  force, 
and  let  the  individual  formulate  his  religious  feeling 
according  to  his  conscience  and  disposition.  That 
is,  I  think,  the  point  where  science  makes  its  com- 
promise with  the  Churches,  recognising  that  this  is 
a  province  that  each  can  survey  as  he  will,  either 
putting  his  own  interpretation  on  it  or  accepting  the 
traditional  ideas  ;  and  it  must  be  sacred  to  others." 
The  direction  of  the  logic  is  clear  enough.  The 
application  of  the  cell-state  theory  to  psychic  life 
must  lead  to  the  problem  of  consciousness.  But 
we  must  not  follow  it,  because  science  has  never 
yet  penetrated  into  this  province.  It  is  the  pro- 
vince of  peaceful  compromise  with  "  the  Church," 
and  we  must  respect  it. 

It  seems  to  me  that  the  explanation  is  clear. 
The  whole  field  of  conflict  that  Haeckel  found 
within  the  science  of  his  time  is  opened  out,  though 
Virchow  was  by  no  means  disposed  at  that  time  to 


164  HAECKEL 

take  Darwinism  as  an  example  of  the  thing  to  be 
avoided,  as  he  did  at  Munich  fourteen  years  after- 
wards. The  kind  of  scientific  inquiry  that  Vir- 
chow  advocated  is  what  w^as  called  **  exact"  at  a 
later  period.  It  kept  clear  of  all  philosophical 
speculation,  and  repeated  over  and  over  again  that 
it  was  only  concerned  with  facts.  It  had,  however, 
another  card  to  play — peace  with  *'  the  Churches." 
Philosophy  was  shunned  in  order  to  leave  a  free 
field  for  the  Churches  to  build  in.  Then  the  exact 
scientist  took  his  hat  and  said,  I  am  afraid  I  am 
incompetent,  and  the  philosopher  is  incompetent, 
to  do  anything  here ;  let  the  Church  take  the 
vacant  chair,  with  my  compliments.  No  philo- 
sophy :  on  this  we  will  make  war  to  the  knife.  This 
is  '^  a  point  where  science  makes  its  compromise 
with  the  Churches."  No  one  can  understand 
Haeckel's  career  who  does  not  grasp  this  anti- 
thesis. The  contrast  between  Haeckel  and  Yir- 
chow,  known  to  all  the  world  since  1877,  is  clearly 
indicated.  Virchow's  speech  in  1877  is  obscure. 
We  must  go  back  to  1863  to  get  behind  the 
veil — the  veil  that  hides  Virchow,  that  is  to  say, 
the  most  prominent  representative  of  the  hostility 
to  Haeckel.  We  cannot  understand  otherwise 
how  this  yawning  gulf  came  about  between 
Haeckel's  ideas  and  a  school  that  professed  to 
follow  *'  exact "  research.  Haeckel  was  building 
up  a  natural  philosophy  which,  starting  from  the 
solid  foundation  of  scientific  research  and  its 
results,  went  on  to  further,  and  greater,  and  more 
far-reaching   issues,  that   could  not  be  seen,  but 


THE    SCIENTIFIC    CONGRESS    OF    1863     165 

could  be  reached  philosophically  by  more  or  less 
happy  deductions  from  the  scientific  data.  It 
might  or  might  not  have  lasting  value  in  points  of 
detail.  He  was  subject  to  the  law  of  evolution. 
He  worked  with  analogy,  and  the  things  he  com- 
pared thereto  were  ever  changing.  It  was  all  the 
same  to  him.  In  any  case  the  dawning  glimmer 
of  the  perfect  light  broadened  out  and  lit  up 
vague  outlines  even  in  the  cloud-wreathed  un- 
known. The  others  worked  in  such  a  way  as  to 
leave  beside  them  provinces  of  a  virgin  white- 
ness, untouched  by  thought  or  logic.  At  times 
they  slipped  into  these  provinces,  and  celebrated 
their  reconciliation-festival  with  ^'the  Churches." 
The  layman  continued  to  think  that  the  Churches 
wielded  an  absolute  authority ;  that  the  scientist, 
abandoning  his  natural  philosophy,  came  to  pay 
them  tribute.  This  situation  has  done  infinite 
mischief,  more  than  the  wildest  and  even  obviously 
perverse  philosophy  ever  did.  It  put  the  scientist 
in  the  position  of  a  tolerated  vassal  in  the  world  of 
thought — the  world  that  the  Churches  had  held  in 
chains  for  ages.  Woe  to  the  man  who  ventured 
to  discuss  '^  consciousness  "  !  Not  because  science 
had  but  the  slender  proportions  of  a  pioneer  in  that 
field,  and  because  there  was  a  danger  of  it  making 
great  mistakes  with  its  natural  philosophy.  No, 
but  because  the  white  neutral  field  began  here  that 
we  had  agreed  to  respect — we  ^^  exact"  scientists 
and  '*  the  Churches."  This  was  the  real  reason 
why  Virchow  and  so  many  others  who  advocated 
the  strict  investigation  of  facts  had  forfeited  the 


166  HAECKEL 

right  to  oppose  Haeckel's  bolder  natural  philosophy 
and  its  conclusion — will  have  forfeited  the  right,  at 
least,  in  the  judgment  of  a  future  and  more  im- 
partial generation.  They  did  not  oppose  him  on 
the  lines  of  an  equal  zeal  for  the  truth,  but  on  much 
lower  and  reactionary  lines.  Their  concern  was  not 
for  the  absolute  triumph  of  truth,  but  for  a  com- 
promise with  certain  forces  in  public  life  whose 
supremacy  was  not  grounded  on  logic  but  on 
inherited  external  power.  It  required  a  certain 
amount  of  diplomatic  shrewdness  to  enter  into  this 
compromise,  in  view  of  the  practical  power  of  those 
forces.  Haeckel  never  had  this  ''  shrewdness." 
We  grant  that.  But  it  is  certainly  a  confusion  of 
all  standards  when  the  shrewdness  of  the  individual 
tries  to  entrench  itself  behind  ostensible  claims  of 
scientific  method ;  when  research  abandons  all 
advance  on  certain  sides  on  the  plea  of  "  exact- 
ness "  instead  of  philosophising — and  then  itself 
makes  use  of  this  exactness  for  compromising  with 
an  ecclesiastical  tradition  that  only  differs  from 
real  philosophy  in  its  antiquity  and  rigidity,  its  dis- 
dain of  rational  argument,  and  its  employment  of 
secular  weapons  that  certain  historical  events 
have  put  in  its  hand  without  any  merit  on  its 
own  part. 

The  darkest  cloud  that  hung  menacingly  on  the 
horizon  of  Darwinism  came  from  this  quarter.  At 
the  moment  we  are  dealing  with  it  did  not  cause 
much  concern.  This  early  Darwinism  thrilled 
with  optimism  as  with  the  magic  of  spring. 
Haeckel  had  to  speak  once  more  in  the  course  of 


THE    SCIENTIFIC    CONGRESS    OF    1863     167 

the  Congress.  The  geologist,  Otto  Volger,  made  a 
pohte  but  energetic  protest  against  the  new  theory 
in  the  final  sitting.  It  was  a  curious  connection  of 
things  that  brought  Volger  into  such  a  position. 

Volger  is  the  man  who  saved  for  Germany  the 
venerable  Goethe-house  at  Frankfort-on-the-Main. 
The  Free  German  Chapter  received  it  from  him 
as  a  gift.  The  action  has  nothing  to  do  with 
geology,  but  it  stands  in  the  annals  of  culture. 
Thus  the  shadow  of  Goethe  came  to  Stettin,  to  be 
present  at  the  open  birth  of  German  Darwinism — 
Goethe,  who  had  once  stood  on  the  very  brink  of 
the  evolutionary  ideas.  And  the  man  who  brought 
him  was  a  geologist  who  felt  moved  to  attack  the 
ideas  of  Darwin  and  Haeckel ! 

No  part  of  science  became  in  the  succeeding 
decades  so  fruitful  for  Darwinistic  purposes  as 
geology.  It  might  very  well  be  called  a  continuous 
argument  for  Darwin ;  from  the  little  slab  of 
Solenhofen  Jurassic  schist  that  yielded,  in  1861, 
the  first  impression  of  the  archeopteryx,  the 
real  connecting  link  between  the  lizard  and  the 
bird,  to  the  incomparable  discoveries  of  Othniel 
Marsh,  Cope,  and  Ameghino  in  America,  which 
put  whole  sections  of  the  genealogical  tree  of  the 
mammals  before  us,  on  to  the  skull  and  thigh- 
bone of  the  ape-man  (pithecanthropus)  of  Java, 
found  by  Eugen  Dubois,  which  brings  so  vividly 
home  to  us  the  transition  from  the  gibbon  to  man. 
But,  as  if  it  had  been  scared  away  by  the  new  idea 
of  evolution  and  its  demand  for  proof,  the  most 
and  the  best  of  this  material  was  not  forthcoming 


168  HAECKEL 

until  after  Darwin  was  pretty  firmly  established 
everywhere.  At  the  earlier  date  we  are  dealing 
with  it  was  quite  possible  for  a  geologist  to  play 
the  sceptic  with  a  shadow  of  justification.  We 
need  not  go  into  the  point  to-day.  It  is  ancient 
history.  But  there  is  an  incidental  point  in 
Volger's  criticism  and  the  reply  it  provoked  from 
Haeckel  that  calls  for  notice. 

Volger  declared  that  Darwinism  in  general  was 
an   unsupported   hypothesis,  but  he  made  a  con- 
cession.    The  species  of  animals  and  plants  need 
not  be  absolutely  unchangeable.     The  only  thing 
that  is  impossible  is  a  continuous  upward  direction 
in  evolution.     All  the  groups  of  living  things,  even 
the  highest,  may  have  been  present  together  from 
the  earliest   days.     Local  changes  in  the  distribu- 
tion of  land  and  water,  &c.,  must   have   brought 
about  a  certain  amount  of  variation  in  life-forms. 
But  after  brief  divergences  all  would  return  to  the 
original  type.     The  proper  symbol  of  the  story  of 
life  is  the  wave  that  rises  out  of  the  sea  and  sinks 
back   into   it.      There   was   no   such   thing   as   a 
steady    advance,    a  wave    that   never   sank  back 
into  the  water.     The   real   image   of  human   life 
is  the  analogy  of  its  obvious  development :  youth, 
maturity,  then  old  age  and  back  once  more.     The 
speaker  urged  in  plausible  terms  that  this  concep- 
tion retained  the  idea  of  an  "eternal  becoming," 
which  is  better  than  a  rigid  fulfilment.     As  if  an 
eternally  advancing  evolution  did  not  include  this 
*' eternal  becoming."     Haeckel  spoke  immediately 
after  Yolger.      He   not   only   attacked   the   weak 


THE    SCIENTIFIC    CONGRESS    OF    1863     169 

points  of  the  geologist,  but  went  on  to  the  deeper 
philosophic  question.  The  notion  of  a  **  perennial 
circular  movement"  is  "inconsistent  with  all 
the  facts  of  human  history."  "If  we  appeal  to 
sentiment,  I  must  say  that  this  circular  theory 
has  no  attraction  for  me,  whereas  the  Darwinian 
idea  of  a  progressive  evolution  seems  the  only  one 
consistent  with  the  nature  of  man."  T'he  story 
of  the  animals  and  plants  is  subject  to  "the  law 
of  progress"  just  as  much  as  human  history. 

In  these  words  of  Haeckel's  we  have  a  clear 
indication  of  the  optimistic  temper  of  Darwinism 
at  the  time.  They  touch  a  question  of  funda- 
mental importance  for  the  value  of  the  new  theory  : 
the  question  whether,  in  spite  of  all  it  destroyed, 
in  spite  of  its  disseverance  from  the  idea  of  God, 
it  brought  with  it  a  new  ground  of  conciliation, 
a  conviction  of  the  ever-advancing  growth  of  the 
world  and  ever  greater  achievements  ?  God  was 
replaced  by  natural  law.  There  was  no  longer 
any  "  design  "  beyond  the  simple  and  unchang- 
ing course  of  natural  laws.  Well,  what  were 
these  natural  laws  going  to  do  for  us  ?  Were 
they  giving  us  a  world  that  would  become  more 
and  more  harmonious,  that  was  on  the  whole  an 
advancing  organism,  that  would  be  an  increasing 
embodiment  of  God — the  God  within  nature,  not 
without,  God  at  the  end  of  things,  after  aeons  of 
worlds  that  seemed  to  break  up  like  the  indivi- 
dual in  the  struggle  for  existence,  yet  were  eternal 
in  the  mighty  essence  that  was  tossed  on  from 
world   to   world    like    a   grain   of    dust    and    was 


170  HAECKEL 

made  the  starting-point  of  infinitely  new  and 
more  complex  movements  ?  Or  —  was  the  work 
of  these  natm'al  laws  but  a  ceaseless  poking  and 
thrusting  and  bubble-blowing  without  any  inner 
meaning  ?  Was  it  the  play  of  waves  that  rise 
and  fall,  and  rise  and  fall  again,  in  the  ocean, 
an  eternal  melting  into  smoke  and  nothingness  ? 
Was  the  whole  of  ^'evolution"  an  absolutely 
meaningless  play  of  innumerable  tendencies,  not 
one  of  which  would  ever  come  to  anything? 

This  note  also  was  found  in  the  first  melody. 
Something  would  have  been  lacking  if  it  had 
not  been  struck.  Here  again  there  could  be  a 
parting  of  ways,  not  only  in  the  crowd,  but 
amongst  the  thoughtful.  The  whole  struggle  of 
optimism  and  pessimism  might  be  dragged  in. 
At  all  events,  the  problem  was  bound  to  be 
pointed  out  from  the  start. 

When  Volger,  not  a  bad  opponent  at  the  bottom, 
and  Haeckel  had  made  their  speeches,  indicating 
at  once  certain  lasting  antitheses  within  the 
subtle  philosophy  of  Darwinism,  Virchow  closes 
the  debates  and  the  Congress  with  a  most 
dangerous  blessing.  In  essentials  he  is  once  more 
on  the  side  of  Haeckel.  He  suggests  that  geology 
should  be  allowed  to  mature  a  little  before  final 
judgment  is  passed.  The  strongest  evidence  for 
evolution  is  found  in  embryology  (the  science  of 
the  embryonic  forms  and  uterine  development  of 
living  species  of  animals).  The  prophecy  was 
fulfilled,  if  ever  prophecy  was,  and  in  Haeckel's 
own  most  particular  field  of  work.     But,  in  fine — 


THE    SCIENTIFIC    CONGRESS    OF    1863     171 

he  returns  to  his  point — the  main  thing  is  the 
*'  pursuit  of  truth."  And  since  "  the  most  earnest 
ecclesiastical  teachers "  declared  that  "  God  is 
truth,"  he  could  not  do  better  than  close  with  a 
reminder  (I  quote  him  verbatim)  of  "the  com- 
promise that  may  be  efected  between  science  and 
the  Church."  Translated  into  plain  language, 
that  means  :  My  dear  children,  fight  it  out  as  you 
will,  but  respect  the  Church  always  as  the  main 
thing,  and  you  will  do  well,  however  much  you 
differ.  Thus  closed  this  remarkable  Scientific 
Congress — as  quietly  as  a  bomb  that  smokes  noise- 
lessly, like  a  whifi  from  a  tobacco  pipe.  But  one 
day  it  will  burst. 


CHAPTEE  VI 


THE    ^' GENEEAL    MOEPHOLOGY '' 


THE  speech  at  the  Scientific  Congress  in  1863 
was  the  first  open  confession  that  Haeckel 
felt  bound  to  make.  But  the  real  work  for  the 
new  ideas  began  on  his  return  to  Jena.  Nothing 
was  further  from  Haeckel 's  thoughts  at  that  time 
than  the  idea  of  becoming  merely  the  populariser 
of  Darwinism  in  Germany.  He  has  often  been 
spoken  of  since  in  lay  circles  as  such.  It  is  en- 
tirely wrong.  He  had  the  courage  to  recognise 
his  debt  whenever  he  contracted  one ;  and  cer- 
tainly Darwin  supplied  the  groundwork  of  his 
colour-scheme.  But  he  was  much  too  independent 
and  individual  in  his  nature  not  to  take  the  axe 
in  his  own  hand  at  once  and  begin  to  hew  away 
himself. 

Darwin  had  strengthened  his  book  with  a  large 
amount  of  the  best  material  that  zoology  and 
botany  could  supply.  But  there  was  something 
else  to  be  done :  a  theoretical  treatment  of  a 
general   character   with  cleverly  grouped  illustra- 

172 


THE    "GENERAL    MORPHOLOGY"        178 

tions  from  the  facts  already  provided  by  two 
sciences,  and  to  reconstruct  these  sciences  from 
their  foundations  on  the  basis  of  the  new  theory. 
At  that  time  Haeckel  was  doing  an  incredible 
amount  of  work,  with  body  and  mind.  He  had 
an  iron  constitution.  In  the  year  of  the  Stettin 
speech  he  won  a  laurel  crown  at  the  Leipsic 
athletic  festival  for  the  long  jump,  with  a  leap  of 
twenty  feet.  His  physical  strength  seemed  so 
inexhaustible  that  his  host,  Engelmann,  put  a 
pair  of  heavy  iron  dumb-bells  in  his  bed,  in  case 
he  should  want  to  take  exercise  during  the  night. 
He  had  a  proportionate  strength  of  mind.  Every- 
thing seemed  to  promise  very  well  for  the  next 
few  years,  so  that  he  could  devote  his  whole  health 
and  strength  to  the  great  task  of  his  life.  His 
teaching  did  not  giYO  him  very  much  trouble  in 
a  small  university  like  Jena,  that  was  only  just 
beginning  to  have  a  scientific  name.  The  happi- 
ness of  his  home  life,  with  a  highly  gifted  woman 
who  shared  all  his  ideas  with  the  freshness  of 
youth,  began  to  chain  the  restless  wanderer  with 
pleasant  bonds  to  his  place.  He,  of  course,  ex- 
pected to  have  his  sea-holiday  in  the  old  way  for 
the  study  of  his  little  marine  treasures,  but  other- 
wise he  remained  quietly  in  the  valley  of  the  Saale. 
The  warmth  of  genial  and  most  stimulating 
friendships  gathered  about  his  life.  With  his 
comfortable  material  position  he  set  to  work 
on  his  great  task  under  the  best  auspices. 

He  would  have  had  at  the  start  material  enough 
to    work    upon   without  Darwin.     From  Miiller's 


174  HAECKEL 

time  he  still  had  another  special  class  of  material, 
similar  to  the  radiolaria,  the  medusae. 

The  ship  cuts  through  the  ocean.  It  rises  like 
a  lofty  fortress  from  the  illimitable  blue  plain, 
with  the  white  clouds  on  the  far  horizon.  No 
land  has  been  in  sight  for  days.  Yesterday  a  poor 
wind-borne  butterfly  rested  on  the  deck.  To-day 
it  is  gone,  and  all  is  sea.  Then  they  suddenly 
appear  silently  in  the  blue  mirror :  mysterious 
discs,  red  as  the  anemones  on  a  Eoman  meadow 
in  spring,  golden  as  the  autumn  leaves  on  a  dark 
pond  in  the  park,  then  blue,  like  a  lighter  blue 
floating  on  the  general  azure.  They  are  the  me- 
dusae. At  one  time  the  ship  sails  through  a  whole 
swann  of  them — thousands,  hundreds  of  thousands, 
millions,  a  veritable  milky  way  of  coloured  stars. 
On  the  next  day  they  have  all  gone.  No  inhabi- 
tant of  the  ocean  seems  to  be  so  close  to  it  as 
this  creature.  The  whole  animal  is  only  a  shade 
more  substantial  than  the  water.  You  take  it  out, 
and  try  to  catch  hold  of  it.  It  stings  your  hand 
like  a  nettle :  that  is  its  one  weapon.  But  it  is 
already  destroyed,  melted  away,  a  formless  nothing. 
You  put  it  on  a  piece  of  blotting-paper,  and  it 
dries  up  into  the  spectral  outline  of  a  shadow,  a 
tiny  ''  fat-spot,"  summary  of  its  whole  existence. 

Yet  this  soap-bubble  of  the  water  is  a  real 
animal.  Its  transparent  body  is  shaped  like  a  bell, 
and  moves  through  the  water  by  regular  contrac- 
tion and  expansion,  like  the  lung  in  breathing. 
Where  the  clapper  of  the  bell  should  be,  we  find 
a  stomach,  with  a  mouth  for  eating,  hanging  down 


THE    "GENERAL    MORPHOLOGY"        175 

from  the  curved  upper  part.  At  the  edge  of  the 
curved  surface  are  many  long  fibrils  that  close  on 
the  approaching  prey  and  paralyse  it  by  their 
sting.  Then  it  thrusts  it  into  its  mouth  and 
swallows  the  object  into  the  stomach.  The 
medusa  is,  of  course,  a  very  lowly  creature,  but 
it  is  much  more  advanced  in  organisation  than 
the  tiny  radiolarian.  The  radiolarian  consists  of  a 
single  cell.  The  medusa  is  a  cell-state,  a  commu- 
nity of  countless  cells  with  a  division  of  labour 
amongst  them.  Some  of  the  cells  form  the  wall 
of  the  bell,  some  the  stinging  threads,  some  the 
devouring  and  digesting  stomach.  In  this  the 
medusa  comes  nearer  to  man  than  the  radiolarian. 
Some  of  the  cells  see  to  the  reproduction  of  the 
medusa.  Ova  and  spermatozoa  are  detached  from 
the  cell-community  of  the  medusa's  body,  blend 
together,  and  thus  form  the  germ  of  a  new 
medusa.  In  most  cases  the  process  is  curious 
enough.  From  the  germ-cell  we  get  at  first,  not 
a  real  medusa,  but  a  polyp  that  attaches  itself  to 
the  ground,  a  little  creature  that  may  be  remotely 
compared  to  the  pretty  water-lilies  that  meet  the 
eye  in  an  aquarium.  Then  the  polyp  produces 
something  like  a  plant  that  grows  buds,  the  real 
medusae  ;  it  may  produce  these  out  of  its  sub- 
stance as  buds,  and  they  then  float  away  like 
detached  flowers,  or  (in  other  species)  it  may 
gradually  change  itself  into  a  chain  of  medusaa, 
of  which  the  uppermost  is  detached  first,  then  the 
next,  and  so  on. 

Since    this    peculiar    method    of    reproduction 


170  HAECKEL 

became  known,  in  the  thirties  or  forties,  the 
medusaB  were  regarded  as  amongst  the  most 
interesting  objects  in  the  whole  of  zoology.  They 
offered  an  extremely  difficult  task  to  the  investi- 
gator who  would  care  to  take  up  the  study  of 
them. 

When  Haeckel  was  with  Johannes  Miiller  in 
Heligoland  in  1854  he  made  acquaintance  with 
them  for  the  first  time.  His  artistic  eye  was 
caught  with  their  beauty,  as  it  was  afterwards 
with  the  radiolaria.  "  Never  shall  I  forget,"  he 
says,  "  the  delight  with  which,  as  a  student  of 
twenty  years  I  gazed  on  the  first  Tiara  and  Irene 
[species  of  medusae] ,  and  the  first  Chrysaora  and 
Gyanea,  and  endeavoured  to  reproduce  their 
beautiful  forms  and  colours."  His  predilection 
for  the  medusae  never  disappeared.  At  Nice 
in  1856  he  met  them  again  in  the  Mediterranean. 
Gegenbaur's  SJcetch  of  a  Classification  of  tlie  Me- 
duscB  provided  his  studies  with  a  starting-point, 
just  as  Miiller' s  writings  did  afterwards  for  the 
radiolaria.  At  Naples  and  Messina  he  completed 
his  mastery  of  them.  When  he  had  done  with 
the  radiolaria  for  the  time  after  publishing  the  great 
monograph  of  1862,  the  next  task  that  loomed  up 
on  his  horizon  was  the  need  for  a  "  monograph  on 
the  medusae."  It  would  be  a  long  time,  however, 
before  he  could  complete  the  work  in  any  fulness. 
A  work  of  Agassiz  that  purported  to  do  it,  but,  in 
his  opinion,  only  confused  the  subject — he  disliked 
both  the  Agassizs,  father  and  son,  and  the  father 
became   one   of    his   bitterest    opponents   on   the 


THE    "GENERAL    MORPHOLOGY"        177 

Darwinian  question — gave  him  a  negative  impulse 
to  the  study.  He  thought  it  would  be  best  to 
deal  with  one  family  of  the  medus©  after  another 
in  separate  monographs,  as  time  permitted.  The 
first  of  these  essays  appeared  in  1864  and  1865, 
and  dealt  with  what  are  known  as  the  ''  snouted- 
medusae "  {geryonidce).  The  first  volume  of  the 
complete  work  was  not  published  until  fourteen 
years  afterwards.  If  Haeckel  had  decided  to  work 
as  a  specialist  he  would  have  had  material  enough 
here  to  occupy  him  fully  throughout  the  whole 
of  the  sixties,  and  even  longer.  The  keen  student 
of  the  radiolaria  would  be  succeeded  by  the  equally 
keen  student  of  the  medusae.  More  folio  volumes 
would  have  accumulated,  with  beautiful  plates, 
such  as  only  the  technical  student  of  zoology  ever 
takes  out  of  the  library.  His  name,  like  that  of 
his  friend  Gegenbaur  almost,  would  never  have 
reached  the  crowd. 

It  was  the  influence  of  Darwin  that  prevented 
this.  His  attention  was  turned  in  another  direction, 
and  we  begin  to  realise  the  full  greatness  of  his 
power  when  we  remember  that  he  nevertheless 
continued  with  unfailing  quality  to  publish  such 
detailed  studies  as  those  on  the  medusae. 

Darwinian  ideas  were  fermenting  intensely  in 
his  mind  at  that  time.  The  most  audacious  prac- 
tical and  theoretical  problems  arose  from  the 
fundamental  theory,  and  forced  themselves  on  him 
at  every  moment.  A  great  deal  was  sketched  in 
outline  in  the  Stettin  speech,  but  the  serious 
scientific  work   would  have   to  be  begun  on  his 

12 


178  HAECKEL 

return  to  Jena,  in  his  view.  First,  he  thought, 
two  features  of  Darwin's  system  must  be  given  a 
completely  new  and  original  complexion.  Firstly, 
the  bottom  of  the  tree,  where  life  begins.  Secondly, 
the  crown  of  all  terrestrial  evolution  :  the  manner 
in  which  man  is  connected  with  the  tree.  It  was 
his  philosophic  vein  that  settled  both  points,  the 
philosophy  of  unity  that  sought  to  replace  God  by 
natural  development,  both  below  and  above,  in 
regard  to  the  primitive  cell  and  in  regard  to  man. 
But  the  way  in  which  he  set  about  it  was  very  far 
removed  from  all  conventional  philosophy.  The 
whole  rigour  of  his  professional  zoology  found 
expression  in  it.  And  that  was  really  the  novelty 
of  it.  The  same  conclusions  might  have  been 
drawn  by  any  dozen  ordinary  philosophers,  once 
they  got  on  the  right  track.  Even  they  could  see 
that,  if  two  and  two  are  four,  one  and  one  are  two, 
and  three  times  three  nine.  Haeckel  went  very 
differently,  and  much  more  profoundly,  to  work. 

As  an  old  pupil  of  Virchow's  he  applies  the  cell- 
theory  to  Darwinism — in  the  lower  stage.  The 
first  living  things,  the  roots  of  the  great  tree  of 
life,  consisted  of  a  single  cell.  The  logic  of  the 
cell-theory  itself  went  as  far  as  this.  But  is  the 
individual  cell  the  simplest  of  all  living  forms  ? 
Here  there  was  a  long-standing  controversy  as  to 
definitions.  At  first  the  cell  was  regarded  literally 
as  a  kind  of  chamber,  like  the  cell  in  the  honey- 
comb. Then  it  w^as  found  that  the  jelly-like, 
mobile  matter  within  the  cell-chamber  was  the 
essential  element,  the  vehicle  of  life.     Finally,  it 


V 


>^^ 


V 


/ 


V     \ 


\^v 


c 


V  ■  \- 


->-  C' 


\ 

1 , 

1 

\ 

V 

^ 

V' 


V 


V^(»«^'-<=^ 


>v^ 


Ernst  Haeckel,  1890. 
From  a  relief-portrait  >nodelled  by  Kopf,  of  Rome. 


To  face  p.  178. 


THE    "GENERAL    MORPHOLOGY"        179 

was  possible  to  conceive  this  slimy  substance  with- 
out any  firm  membrane,  without  a  chamber.  In- 
side it,  however,  there  w^as  always  (it  was  then 
thought)  a  thick  and  hard  substance,  the  nucleus. 
If  that  was  the  fundamental  and  only  really  essen- 
tial form,  the  Darwinian  primitive  and  initial  type 
of  all  terrestrial  life  must  have  been  a  similar 
drop  of  living  matter  with  a  solid  central  nucleus, 
a  nucleated  individual  cell. 

How  could  we  pass  from  this  primitive  cell  to 
the  "inorganic,"  the  "lifeless,"  the  "dead,"  the 
ordinary  matter  of  stone,  metal,  and  crystal? 
Haeckel  believed  that  it  was  possible  to  make  a 
step  in  that  direction — not  theoretically  and  philo- 
sophically, but  practically — by  showing  that  there 
w^ere  still  living  things  on  the  earth  that  did  not 
come  up  to  the  definition  of  a  true  cell,  things  that 
had  not  yet  a  nucleus  in  their  soft  gelatinous  body. 
He  discovered  a  number  of  tiny  creatures  that  had 
a  homogeneous  particle  of  living  matter  for  body, 
and  showed  no  trace  of  a  nucleus.  The  nucleus 
seemed  to  be  the  first  beginning  of  an  organ.  It 
was  altogether  wanting  in  them. 

To  these  most  primitive  of  all  living  things  he 
gave  the  name  of  monera^  or  the  absolutely 
"  simple." 

In  these  investigations  it  is  very  difScult  to 
determine  whether  one  of  these  tiny  drops  of  plasm 
has  a  more  or  less  transparent  nucleus  or  not.  It 
has  often  been  affirmed  in  later  years  that  these 
monera  of  Haeckel's  did  not  correspond  to  their 
description  as  living  things  without  a  nucleus,  or 


180  HAECKEL 

creatures  that  were  below  the  level  of  the  true  cell. 
It  is,  at  all  events,  certam  that  there  are  to-day 
large  numbers  of  the  unicellular  beings  known  as 
the  bacteria  in  w^hich  no  nucleus  has  yet  been  dis- 
covered by  the  most  sceptical  Thomas  with  the 
most  powerful  microscopes  and  best  technical 
appliances  of  our  time.  It  is  the  same  with  the 
chromacea  (chroococci,  oscillaria,  nostoc-algae), 
very  lowly  primitive  plants  whose  whole  body  con- 
sists of  a  globule  or  granule  of  living  plasm.  How- 
ever, here  again  the  question  is  no  longer  of  the 
first  importance,  now  that  evolution  is  entirely 
and  generally  accepted.  At  the  time  we  are  dis- 
cussing the  method  chosen  was  all-important. 
Haeckel  drew  no  conclusions  without  a  solid  basis. 
He  believed  he  could  give  ocular  proof  of  the 
existence  of  beings  that  were  below  the  level  of  the 
cell.  It  was  clear,  at  all  events,  that  research  in 
this  department  was  only  in  its  beginning,  and 
could  pour  out  wonder  after  wonder  before  the 
world  recovered  from  its  first  fright  over  Dar- 
winism. 

Then  there  was  the  other  end  of  the  system — 
man.  Here  again  it  was  not  merely  a  question  of 
concluding  on  philosophic  grounds  that  man  must 
have  descended  from  the  lower  animals.  Huxley 
had  dealt  in  England  with  the  question  of  man 
and  the  ape  on  the  strict  lines  of  zoology.  He 
came  to  the  important  conclusion  that  man  differs 
less  zoologically  from  the  highest  apes,  the  gorilla 
and  chimpanzee,  than  they  do  from  the  lowest  apes. 
He  proved  his  point  by  a  technical  study  of  skulls 


THE  *' GENERAL  MORPHOLOGY"    181 

and  brains,  not  from  abstract  philosophical  prin- 
ciples. It  could  be  demonstrated  in  the  museum 
or  zoological  institute  to  any  student  with  some 
knowledge  of  anatomy  as  easily  as  the  existence 
and  position  of  any  particular  bone  in  the  skeleton. 
Haeckel  went  even  further. 

He  constructed  a  genealogical  tree  stretching  far 
below  the  apes.  Next  to  them  came  the  lemurs. 
The  lemur,  the  ghostly  nocturnal  inhabitant  of 
Madagascar,  came  from  the  Australian  marsupial 
(kangaroo,  &c.).  The  marsupial  came  from  the 
duck-bill ;  the  duck-bill  from  the  lizard ;  the  lizard 
from  the  salamander ;  the  salamander  from  the 
dipneust  or  mud-fish  ;  this  from  the  sturgeon  or  the 
shark,  and  the  shark  from  the  lamprey.  Below 
the  lamprey,  at  the  lowest  limit  of  the  vertebrate 
kingdom,  was  the  amphioxus  (or  lancelet).  This 
must  have  come  from  the  worm — it  was  not  at  all 
clear  how,  at  that  time.  And  so  the  series  ran  on 
down  to  the  unicellular  protozoa,  the  amoebae  and 
the  monera. 

The  construction  of  this  tree  would  have  been 
impossible  for  one  who  had  not  already  done 
gigantic  work.  The  whole  of  the  new  system  of 
animals  and  plants,  conceived  in  the  form  of  a 
genealogical  tree,  had  first  to  be  sketched  in  outline. 
Then  the  narrower  thread  that  led  up  to  man,  the 
Ariadne-thread  of  God-Nature,  would  gradually 
come  to  light. 

Both  ends  of  the  system,  the  lower  one  in  the 
monera,  the  upper  one  in  man,  were  first 
thoroughly  treated  by  him  in  1865,   and  in  part 


182  HAECKEL 

somewhat  later.  His  exhaustive  Monograph  on 
the  Monera  was  not  pubHshed  until  1868.  Man's 
genealogical  tree  was  privately  circulated  at  Jena 
in  two  essays  in  October  and  November  1865. 
They  were  published  in  the  Yirchow-Holtzendorff 
collection  in  1868  (^'  The  Origin  and  Genealogical 
Tree  of  the  Human  Eace").  But  in  both  cases 
the  substance  of  the  work,  as  an  accumulation 
of  facts,  is  much  older.  And  this  work  was,  of 
course,  only  possible  in  connection  with  a  number 
of  further  conclusions :  in  regard  to  spontaneous 
generation,  life  and  death,  the  crystal  and  the 
cell,  the  mathematical  form  of  organisms,  the 
nature  and  limits  of  individuality,  the  method  of 
research,  the  new  natural  philosophy,  God,  and 
so  on. 

It  was  an  enormous  programme,  with  a  Para- 
disaic freshness.  Everything  was  new  and  great ; 
and  all  came  from  one  brain.  There  was  only 
one  man  with  whom  he  discussed  his  ideas  as 
they  formed,  Carl  Gegenbaur,  who  has  undoubtedly 
had  a  great,  if  unconscious,  influence  on  them. 
Haeckel's  grateful  recognition  of  Gegenbaur's  help 
in  later  years  was  endless  and  touching.  ^'  Thou 
it  was,"  he  writes  to  him  a  little  later,  *'  that  led 
me  to  begin  my  academic  teaching  at  our  beloved 
Jena  six  years  ago,  at  the  Thuringian  university 
in  the  heart  of  Germany,  that  has,  like  a  beating 
heart,  sent  out  its  living  waves  of  freedom  and 
alertness  of  mind  over  Germany  for  three  hundred 
years.  At  this  nursery  of  German  philosophy  and 
science,  under  the  protection  of  a  free  State  whose 


THE    "GENERAL    MORPHOLOGY"        183 

princely  rulers  ever  gave  a  refuge  to  free  speech 
and  have  linked  their  names  for  ever  with  the 
reform  movement,  the  golden  age  of  German 
poetry,  I  was  able  to  work  in  association  with  thee. 
Here  we  built  up  our  common  structure  of  science 
in  the  happiest  division  of  labour,  teaching  and 
learning  cordially  from  each  other,  in  the  very 
rooms  in  which  Goethe  began  his  studies  of  *  the 
morphology  of  organisms  '  a  half-century  before, 
and  partly  with  the  same  scientific  means,  the  germs 
of  comparative  and  philosophic  science  that  he 
had  scattered.  We  have  shared  with  each  other  as 
brothers  the  happiness  and  the  sorrow  that  came 
in  the  hard  struggle  for  life,  and  our  scientific 
efforts  have  been  so  intimately  blended  and  so 
mutually  helpful,  through  our  daily  working  and 
talking  together,  that  it  would  have  been  impossible 
for  either  of  us  to  determine  the  particular  share 
of  each  in  our  spiritual  communism.  I  can  only 
say  in  a  general  way  that  the  little  my  restless  and 
impulsive  youth  could  offer  thee  here  and  there 
is  out  of  all  proportion  to  the  enormous  amount  I 
have  received  from  thee,  eight  years  my  senior,  a 
more  experienced  and  mature  man." 

Goethe  stood  behind  the  friends  as  the  quiet 
genius  loci,  giving  his  blessing  to  all  who  worked 
in  his  spirit  on  the  old  spot.  Nor  was  the  place 
itself  without  influence.  *'  Much,"  Haeckel  writes, 
*^  may  have  been  even  the  outcome  of  the  common 
uplifting  enjoyment  of  nature  that  was  afforded  us 
by  the  artistic  lines  of  the  Jena  hills,  as  they 
brought  before  us  once  more  at  sunset  the  magic 


184  HAECKEL 

of  the  Calabrian  mountains  by  the  colour-harmony 
of  their  purple  and  gold  banks  of  cloud  and  their 
violet  shadows." 

"  What  are  the  hopes,  what  are  the  plans,  that 
man,  the  creature  of  a  day,  builds  up  ?  " 

The  words  were  written  by  a  poet,  in  his  fatal 
illness,  at  the  spot  where  the  two  strong  spirits 
now  worked.  In  the  midst  of  all  his  hopes  and 
plans  Haeckel  was  struck  by  a  ISliobe-shaft.  On 
February  16th,  1864,  just  on  his  thirtieth  birth- 
day, his  wife,  only  in  her  twenty-ninth  year,  in  the 
full  force  of  mind  and  of  love,  succumbed  to  blood- 
poisoning. 

I  turn  to  the  thick  volume  of  Haeckel's  Mono- 
graph on  the  MeduscB.  Part  I. :  '^  System  of  the 
Medusae  :  "  with  an  atlas  of  forty  beautiful  plates  : 
published  by  Gustav  Fischer,  of  Jena,  in  1879. 
Few  people  except  zoologists  with  a  technical 
interest  in  it  have  ever  opened  this  voluminous 
work — why  should  they  ?  It  is  a  heavy  work,  with 
dry  diagnoses.  The  author  seems  to  be  far  away 
from  all  general  questions,  if  ever  he  was,  in  the 
utter  stillness  of  his  study.  This  pure  accumula- 
tion of  matter  for  truth's  sake  does  not  reach  the 
ear  of  the  world.  It  lays  up  material  for  remote 
days,  before  which  the  individual  fades  away ;  it  is 
merely  catalogued  material  of  the  most  technical 
character.  Yet,  as  I  turn  over  the  pages,  I 
seem  to  see  a  little  image  from  time  to  time 
that  is  almost  like  the  rose-red  or  golden-brown 
medusae  in  the  sterile,  illimitable  ocean.  In  truth 
neither  ocean  nor  book  is  sterile  ;  but  they  are  grey 


THE    "GENERAL    MORPHOLOGY"        185 

and  broad.  And  just  as  the  swimming  medusa 
gladdens  me  in  the  one,  so  a  little  personal  trait 
of  the  author  does  in  the  other.  It  is  in  the  choice 
of  the  Latin  names.  A  little  crown  is  woven 
that  unites  aesthetics  and  science.  I  find  splendid 
names,  invented  by  the  Professor,  on  all  sides. 
But  I  notice  that  his  heart  was  in  these  things. 
He  has  discovered  new  species  of  medusae,  and 
must  christen  them.  As  he  turns  over  his  Latin 
or  Greek  lexicon  a  ray  of  humanity  steals  into  the 
most  severe  scientific  soul  at  such  moments.  I 
read  that  a  disco-medusa  is  called  the  Nausicaa 
phcBaciim  :  **  I  observed  the  Nausicaa  pliceacum 
in  April,  1877,  at  Corfu,  on  the  shore  of  Phaeaca, 
in  the  heart  of  the  Nausicaa."  A  cyaneid  is  given 
the  fine  name  of  the  Melusina  forniosa.  It  is 
noted,  with  great  regret,  that  '^  so  fine  and  classic 
a  name  for  a  medusa"  as  Oceania  must  be  struck 
out  on  scientific  grounds.  Amongst  descriptions 
of  species  in  a  severe  scientific  tongue  that 
unnerves  the  timid  reader,  amongst  gonods,  styles, 
perradial  bundles  of  tentacles,  and  ocellar  bulbs, 
we  find,  apropos  of  the  medusa,  Lizzia  ElisahethcB  : 
^'As  Forbes  dedicated  the  pretty  genus  Lizzia 
hlonclina  to  a  '  blond  Elizabeth,'  I  do  the  same, 
and  wish  to  honour,  not  only  St.  Elizabeth  of 
Thuringia,  but  also  the  ^  blond  Elizabeth'  of 
Immermann  and  my  own  dear  daughter  Eliza- 
beth." 

Then,  in  the  middle  of  the  large  volume,  we 
find  the  following  passage  on  page  189.  A  medusa 
is    <?iven   the    name   of   Mitrocoma  Annce,      The 


186  HAECKEL 

name  was  given  at  Yillefranche,  near  Nice,  in 
April,  1864.  This  medusa  had  ''  a  fairy-like  appear, 
ance  "  to  its  discoverer ;  its  tentacles  hung  down 
*^  like  a  mass  of  blond  hair  !  "  A  note  to  the  name 
tells  us  that  it  was  given  ^^  in  memory  of  my  dear, 
never-to-be-forgotten  wife,  Anna  Sethe.  If  it  is 
given  to  me  to  do  something  during  my  earthly 
pilgrimage  for  science  and  humanity,  I  owe  it 
for  the  most  part  to  the  blessed  influence  of  my 
gifted  wife,  who  was  torn  from  me  by  a  premature 
end  in  1864."  In  the  Art-forms  in  Nature, 
Haeckel's  work  of  1899,  we  find  a  medusa  Des- 
monevia  Annasetlie  similarly  —  after  thirty-five 
years — apostrophised:  ''The  specific  name  of  this 
pretty  disco-medusa,  one  of  the  most  beautiful  and 
interesting  of  all  the  medusae,  immortalises  the 
memory  of  Anna  Sethe,  the  gifted  and  refined  wife 
(born  1835,  died  1864)  to  whom  the  author  of 
this  work  owes  the  happiest  years  of  his  life.'* 

If  one  would  fathom  the  depths  of  human 
emotion  one  must  reflect  what  these  words,  in 
such  a  context,  contain;  it  is  the  last  gentle 
vibration  of  a  most  deep  inner  experience  break- 
ing out  into  this  prosaic,  scientific  material.  A 
medusa  is  a  trivial,  possibly  a  funny  thing,  to 
the  layman.  The  man  of  science  looks  deeper 
into  it,  and  sees  a  wonderful  revelation  of  nature ; 
the  eye  of  Goethe's  God  shines  on  him  from  it. 
But  when  he  has  devoted  years  to  the  most 
careful  study  of  it,  it  assumes  also  a  naive  indi- 
vidual interest  for  him,  as  the  companion  of  his 
solitary   hours   of    observation    in    the    heart    of 


THE    "GENERAL    MORPHOLOGY"        187 

nature,  far  from  all  the  whirl  and  bustle  of  the 
world.  Only  the  deepest  and  most  intimate  feelings 
break  out  in  such  moments.  And  here  they  have 
left  their  monument — in  a  Latin  name  that  science 
will  go  on  coldly  entering  in  its  catalogues  for 
ages  to  come.  It  seems  to  me  that  this  simple 
fact  tells  us  more  of  the  character  of  this  true- 
hearted  man,  in  whom  nothing  human  was  lacking, 

than  long  narratives  could. 

•  •  •  •  • 

When  the  aged  Sethe  saw  the  break-up  in  1806 
of  the  State  of  Prussia,  in  the  invulnerability  of 
which  he  had  believed  as  a  gospel,  he  sought 
refuge  in  the  comfort  of  work.  "  I  succeeded  in 
benumbing  my  mind:  I  experienced  in  myself 
that  hard  work  is  a  soothing  balsam,  co-operating 
with  our  tardy  healing  force."  The  grandson, 
wounded  in  a  more  terrible  way  and  cut  to  the  very 
heart,  tried  the  same  remedy. 

Thirty  years  afterwards,  when  crowns  were 
prepared  and  speeches  delivered  in  honour  of 
Haeckel's  sixtieth  birthday,  when  the  whole  of 
Jena  feted  him  as  their  own,  and  the  veil  fell  from 
his  marble  bust  in  the  Zoological  Institute,  to 
which  seven  hundred  of  the  best  known  names  in 
German  and  foreign  science  had  contributed,  the 
hero  of  it  all  went  back  to  that  dark  hour.  '^I 
thought  at  the  time  that  I  could  not  survive  the 
blow,  thought  my  life  was  closed,  and  purposed  to 
bring  together  all  the  new  ideas  that  Darwin's 
theory  of  evolution  had  evoked  in  me  in  a  last 
great   work.      That   was   the   origin,   amid   bitter 


188  HAECKEL 

struggles,  of  the  Generelle  Morphologie,  It  was 
written  and  printed  in  less  than  a  year.  I  lived 
the  life  of  a  hermit,  gave  myself  barely  three  or 
four  hours  sleep  a  day,  and  worked  all  day  and  half 
the  night.  My  habits  were  so  ascetic  that  I  really 
wonder  I  am  alive  and  well  before  you  to-day." 

In  his  hour  of  collapse  Haeckel  sat  down  and 
wrote  ^Hhe  book  of  his  life."  There  were  only  two 
alternatives  for  a  book  written  in  such  circum- 
stances. It  would  be  either  very  bad  or  very  good. 
When  a  young  man  in  his  thirties  throws  himself 
into  a  great  effort  of  this  kind  and  writes  a  work 
that  he  conceives  as  a  testament — a  work  in  which 
he  will  speak  for  the  last  time,  but  will  say  every- 
thing— it  is  a  desperate  test  of  all  that  he  has  done 
in  his  three  decades  of  life  and  is  about  to  give  to 
the  world.  In  this  case  the  test  succeeded  beyond 
all  expectation. 

The  General  Morphology  of  Organisms^  was 
published  in  1866,  with  the  sub-title  :  ^*  General 
elements  of  the  science  of  organic  forms,  mechani- 
cally grounded  on  the  theory  of  descent  as  reformed 
by  Charles  Darwin."  It  consists  of  two  thick 
volumes  of  small  print,  containing  more  than  1,200 
pages.  The  preface  is  dated  September  14,  1866. 
It  is  now  one  of  the  most  important  works  in  the 
whole  mental  output  of  the  second  half  of  the  nine- 
teenth century.  In  respect  of  method  of  scientific 
research  it  is  a  landmark  by  which  we  may  charac- 
terise and   appraise  the  whole  half-century.     For 

*  This  work  of  Professor  Haeckel's  has  not  been  translated 
into  EngUsh.    [Trans.] 


THE    "GENERAL    MORPHOI.OGY"        189 

general  biological  classification  it  inaugurates  a 
new  epoch,  as  had  been  done  fifty  years  before  by 
Cuvier,  and  again  fifty  years  earlier  by  Linne. 
What  it  did  for  zoology  in  the  narrow  sense  was 
thirty  years  afterwards  summed  up  in  one  phrase 
by  a  wTiter  of  acknowledged  competence,  Eichard 
Hertwig  :  *'  Few  works  have  done  as  much  towards 
raising  the  intellectual  level  of  zoology."  Among 
Haeckel's  own  achievements,  great  and  varied  as 
they  are,  this  work  occupies  the  highest  place. 
Setting  aside  certain  special  pieces  of  research, 
and  regarding  him  mainly  as  a  man  of  great  ideas, 
we  find  his  whole  programme  in  this  work.  The 
History  of  Creation^  that  has  taken  his  name  far 
and  wide  over  the  globe  beyond  the  frontiers  of 
zoology,  is  only  an  extract  from  this  work.  He 
put  his  heart  in  it.  The  others  are  only  the  im- 
proved blood-vessels  of  his  system  of  ideas,  partly 
duplications,  partly  simplifications.  I  do  not  say 
this  either  in  blind  admiration  or  in  criticism,  but 
as  the  expression  of  a  plain  fact.  Posterity  will 
turn  to  this  work  when,  either  in  hostility  or  in 
sympathy,  it  wishes  to  appreciate  Haeckel.* 

His  contemporaries  did  not  accept  the  work 
without  difficulty.  It  came  out  without  noise, 
exerted  a  tremendous  influence  in  a  quiet  way, 
and  at  last  disappeared  altogether  from  the  book- 
shops. It  is  still  attacked,  but  has  never  been 
refuted.  At  libraries  one  finds,  as  I  know  from 
experience,  that  it  is  always  '*  out,"  and  therefore 

■^  Professor  Huxley  described  the  General  Morplwlogy  as  "  one 
of  the  greatest  scientific  works  ever  pubUshed."    [Trans.] 


190  HAECKEL 

must  be  read  continually.  It  is  found  occasionally 
at  second-hand  booksellers  ;  an  antiquarian  price 
running  to  five  pounds  and  more  is  put  on  it, 
after  forty  years'  active  production  on  the  part  of 
its  author.  At  present  you  could  count  on  your 
fingers  the  German  works  that  have  this  distinc- 
tion of  being  highly  priced  and  out  of  print.  One 
such  is  Vischer's  Mstlietics,  and  another  is  the 
first  edition  of  Gottfried  Keller's  Green  Henry. 
Keller  had  threatened  any  one  who  ever  attempted 
to  republish  this  first  edition  (afterwards  modified 
but  not  improved  by  him)  that  their  hand  would 
not  rest  quietly  in  the  grave.  But  the  price  of 
the  work  went  up  amongst  antiquarians.  I  feel, 
in  speaking  of  Haeckel's  General  Moj-pJiologj/y  that 
I  am  describing  a  book  which  has  become  so  rare 
that  one  must  treat  it  as  something  new,  a  codex 
that  is  only  accessible  to  a  few.  It  is  certainly 
not  known  to  the  general  reader. 

Let  me  endeavour  in  a  few  words  to  give  a 
general  idea  of  the  chief  contents  of  the  work. 

All  the  intellectual  forces  that  had  had  any 
influence  upon  Haeckel  now  concentrated  for  a 
supreme  achievement.  First  of  these  was  Goethe, 
who  supplied  the  title,  '^  Morphology."  In  its 
simplest  signification  morphology  is  merely  *^  the 
science  of  forms."  If  I  take  houses,  furniture, 
statues,  fishes,  flowers,  crystals,  &c.,  and  only 
regard  and  describe  their  forms,  I  am  a  morpho- 
logist  in  the  literal  sense  of  the  word.  But  when 
Goethe  invented  the  term  he  sought  to  give  it 
a  more  restricted  application,  writing  in  the  style 


THE    "GENERAL    MORPHOLOGY"        191 

of  earlier  days,  but  clearly  enough,  at  Jena  in  1807. 
We  have,  he  says,  natural  objects  before  us, 
especially  living  objects.  We  try  to  penetrate  the 
secrets  of  their  nature  and  their  action.  We  are 
not  merely  observers,  but  philosophers.  It  is  from 
this  point  of  view  that  we  approach  the  subject. 
It  appears  to  us  that  the  best  way  to  proceed  is 
to  separate  the  various  parts.  Such  a  procedure 
seems  calculated  to  take  us  very  far.  Chemistry 
and  anatomy  are  instances  of  this  analytic  kind 
of  research,  and  both  are  greatly  esteemed  and 
successful.  But  this  method  has  its  limitations. 
"We  can  easily  break  up  the  living  thing  into 
its  elements,  but  we  cannot  put  these  together 
again  and  restore  them  to  life.  We  cannot  do 
this  in  the  case  of  many  inorganic,  to  say 
nothing  of  organic,  bodies."  What  are  we  to  do? 
^' Hence,"  Goethe  continues,  *^even  scientific  men 
have  at  all  times  had  an  impulse  to  recognise 
living  things  as  such,  to  grasp  connectedly  their 
external  visible  and  tangible  parts,  and  take 
these  as  indications  of  the  inner  life,  and  thus  in 
a  sense  to  compass  the  whole  in  one  glance." 
*^  Hence  we  find  at  the  threshold  of  art  and  know- 
ledge and  science  a  number  of  attempts  to 
establish  and  elaborate  a  science  that  we  may 
call  morphology.'' 

Perhaps  Goethe's  meaning  can  be  realised  best 
if  one  takes  a  great  work  of  art — say,  the  Venus 
of  Milo — and  imagines  how  these  different  kinds 
of  knowledge  would  deal  with  it.  Purely  ana- 
lytic anatomy  would  dissolve  the  superb  artistic 


192  HAECKEL 

form  into  a  rubbish -heap  of  bits  of  marble. 
Chemistry  would  still  further  break  up  these  bits 
of  marble  into  the  chemical  elements  of  which 
every  block  of  marble  is  ultimately  composed. 
The  '^form"  would  disappear  altogether.  But  in 
this  case  the  form  means — the  Yenus  of  Milo. 
We  see  at  once  that  we  need  another  branch  of 
science  and  investigation  besides  anatomy  and 
chemistry :  we  need  a  morphology,  or  science  of 
the  complete  form  in  which  the  block  of  marble 
is  moulded  into  the  Venus  of  Milo.  In  the  case  of 
our  work  of  art,  morphology  would  be  identical  with 
aesthetics,  or  at  least  with  a  branch  of  it.  There 
can  be  no  doubt  that  the  first  and  most  imperative 
need  for  the  establishment  of  a  special  science  of 
morphology  arises  from  artistic  and  aesthetic 
feelings.  It  is  not  without  significance  that  it 
was  founded  by  the  poet  Goethe,  and  elaborated 
with  such  great  success  in  the  nineteenth  century 
by  the  born  artist  Haeckel.  However,  that  does 
not  prevent  the  analogy  of  the  Yenus  of  Milo, 
which  happens  to  be  a  creation  of  human  art, 
being  applied  equally  to  every  individualised  form 
in  nature,  to  every  crystal,  plant,  and  animal. 
Goethe  himself  immediately  transferred  his  mor- 
phology into  the  province  of  botany  with  such 
vigour  that  the  term  is  still  regarded,  in  its 
narrower  sense,  as  a  technical  botanical  expression. 
It  extends,  however,  to  the  whole  world  in  so 
far  as  its  contents  come  before  us  in  "  forms." 
When  Haeckel  adopted  the  term  he  deliberately 
restricted  it,  in  harmony  with  the  general  definition, 


THE    "GENERAL    MORPHOLOGY"        193 

by  calling  his  work  the  ''  Morphology  of  Organ- 
isms," or  the  science  of  the  forms  of  animals  and 
plants. 

But  there  was  one  danger  in  the  conception 
of  a  morphology  of  animals  and  plants,  namely, 
the  danger  of  taking  it  to  mean  a  purely  external 
description  :  so  many  thousand  species  of  plants, 
soberly  described,  labelled,  and  numbered,  a  huge 
cabinet  of  stuffed  skins,  a  herbarium  of  hay.  A 
whole  scientific  school  had  really  taken  it  in  this 
sense  since  Goethe's  time ;  much  as  if  one  were  to 
think  aesthetics  consisted  simply  in  forming  an 
illustrated  catalogue  of  all  the  art-treasures  in  the 
world,  a  realistic  catalogue  in  which  the  marble 
statues  from  the  Parthenon  and  the  Moses  of 
Michael  Angelo  would  simply  be  given  as  number 
so-and-so  in  class  so-and-so. 

Haeckel  was  preserved  from  this  school  by  his 
more  immediate  masters,  as  well  as  by  Goethe 
himself;  firstly  by  Johannes  Miiller,  then  by  the 
botanist  Schleiden,  finally  by  the  influence  of 
Gegenbaur.  There  was  at  the  time  enough,  and 
more  than  enough,  of  this  external  museum- 
morphology.  It  was  far  from  Haeckel's  intention 
to  produce  a  new  compendium,  in  several  volumes, 
of  this  kind  of  science  of  plants  and  animals. 
His  morphology  was  to  be  ^*  general,"  to  have  a 
broader  range,  be  a  programme.  As  Richard 
Hertwig  said  very  happily  at  a  later  date,  he 
saw  his  science,  not  as  it  then  was,  but  as  it  ought 
to  be,  in  his  opinion. 

The  science  of  forms  was  to  be  in  the  fullest  sense 

13 


( 


194  HAECKEL 

a  *' philosophy  of  forms."  '* Zoological  philosophy" 
was  the  name  given  by  the  hapless  Lamarck,  in 
France  a  century  ago,  to  a  work  that  appeared  in 
the  year  that  Darwin  was  born,  and  anticipated 
his  most  advanced  thoughts.  Haeckel,  also,  gave 
anew  "  philosophy  of  zoology  and  botany."  The 
title  embodies  the  magic  formula  that  gave  him 
courage  to  take  up  resolutely  once  more  the 
proscribed  word,  that  seemed  to  have  been  scalded 
and  spoiled  for  ever  in  the  witches'  cauldron  of 
"  natural  philosophy  "  ;  it  spoke  of  the  ''  theory  of 
descent  as  reformed  by  Charles  Darwin."  Two 
sub-titles  divided  the  work  into  two  sections  from 
the  start.  The  first  part  was,  the  critical  elements 
of  the  mechanical  science  of  the  developed  forms 
of  organisms  (animal  and  plant) :  the  second  part 
was,  the  same  elements  of  the  mechanical  science 
of  the  developing  forms  of  organisms. 

In  these  titles  we  see  the  decisive  advance 
beyond  Johannes  Miiller.  As  Goethe  had  already 
declared,  morphology  as  such  can  be  formed  into 
a  real  and  profound  science.  It  will  then  not 
confine  itself  pedantically  to  a  registration  of  forms. 
It  will  compare  them  with  each  other,  and  seek 
the  hidden  law  in  the  straggling  phenomena.  It 
will  mark  out  broad  lines  that  will  enable  the 
human  mind  to  grasp  its  objects  in  all  their  fulness. 
Johannes  Miiller  had  only  been  able  to  confirm 
that  in  the  narrower  sphere  of  biology.  This  was 
the  nerve  that  gave  vitality  to  zoology  and  botany, 
and  made  them  a  province  of  the  mind  in  the 
higher  sense.     But  the  question  now  was :   which 


THE    "GENERAL    MORPHOLOGY"        195 

laws  were    detected,   and    in   which   category  of 
thought  were  they  to  be  found  ?     Miiller  had  the 
theory,  but  was  weak  on  the  practical  side.     There 
were  the  "forms"  of  animals  and  plants.     What 
was  it  that  really  connected  them?     What  was 
the  reality  that  corresponded  to  the  philosophic 
craving  of  the  intelligence  ?     Miiller' s  next  school, 
the    generation    immediately  preceding    Haeckel, 
that   of  Du  Bois-Eeymond,  Virchow,  and  many 
others,    had    apparently    indicated    the    solution. 
They  had   replaced   Miiller's  vague   general   con- 
ception of  the  laws  of  morphology  and  life,  which 
was  undermined  by  older  influences,  by  a  single 
great   demand.     We  want   to   grasp  nature  as  a 
unity.     At  one  point  in  nature  we  have  reached 
deep    and    apparently    fundamental    factors  —  in 
physics    and   chemistry    and   their   plain   natural 
laws   or  forces.     Now   let   us   try,    starting  from 
the   idea   of   unity  and   from  the   plainest   of   all 
philosophical  principles,  that  of  proceeding  from 
the  known  to  the  unknown,  to  reduce  the  forms 
and  phenomena  of  life  to  these  natural  laws  of 
chemistry  and  physics.     Let  us  find  out  whether 
the  whole  form-world  of  the  animals  and  plants — 
in  other  words,  the  whole  province  of  morphology 
in  the  narrower  sense — can  be  traced  to  the  same 
natural  laws  that  we  have  in  chemical  and  physical 
phenomena.     The  globe  is  the  object  of  chemistiy 
and    physics.      Shall   these   few   green   or   other- 
coloured  things  that   lie  at  the  limit  of  the  air, 
water,  and  rocks,  a  small  minority  in  nature,  the 
things  we  call  animals  and  plants,  alone  in  the 


196  HAECKEL 

whole  world  be  exempt  from  the  action  of  these 
laws  ?  It  is  immaterial  that  Miiller's  best  pupils, 
Du  Bois  in  his  later  years  and  Virchow  at  an  early 
date,  departed  more  or  less  from  this  consistent 
position  of  theirs  into  philosophic  and  other  side- 
paths.  The  younger  generation,  to  which  Haeckel 
belongs,  that  only  came  into  direct  touch  with 
Miiller  in  his  last  years,  heard  no  other  gospel. 
What  further  advance  was  to  be  made?  In 
chemistry  and  physics  they  had  before  them  the 
deep  stratum  that  yielded  good  mechanical  laws. 
The  first  stage  of  physiology  after  Miiller,  as  we 
find  it,  for  instance,  under  Du  Bois-Keymond, 
yielded  some  good  indications  for  the  organic.  But 
was  the  whole  of  morphology  to  be  remodelled? 
Was  the  vast  labyrinth  of  the  thousands  and 
thousands  of  animal  and  plant  forms  in  the 
museum  to  be  reduced  to  mechanical  laws,  corre- 
sponding to  those  of  physics  and  chemistry,  and 
be  explained  by  them  ? 

Darwin  brought  salvation.  Now  that  he  had 
appeared,  Haeckel  felt  that  he  could  begin  to  work. 
The  hour  and  the  man  were  come. 

Darwin  made  it  possible  for  him  to  raise 
morphology  to  a  penetrative  science,  equal  to 
physics  and  chemistry,  and  so  to  make  a  step 
towards  the  unity  of  our  knowledge  of  a  unified 
world.  Hitherto  the  morphology  of  the  animals 
and  plants  had  been  in  confusion.  God,  imagined 
in  the  form  of  a  higher  man,  had  deliberately 
created  the  organic  forms,  the  palm,  the  moss,  the 
turtle,  and  the  man.     He  had  constructed  them  on 


THE    "GENERAL    MORPHOLOGY"        197 

a  definite  plan,  as  a  man  makes  machines.  Now, 
it  appeared,  the  deeper  stratum  was  peeping  out 
even  here.  Laws  that  had  built  the  heavens  and 
the  earth  reached,  by  way  of  the  Darwinian  theories 
of  selection  and  adaptation,  to  the  moss  and  palm, 
the  turtle  and  man. 

It  was  Haeckel's  peculiar  distinction  to  take  up 
this  path  as  the  right  one.  It  was  then  altogether 
new ;  to-day,  even  in  the  eyes  of  an  opponent,  it 
has  at  least  the  solid  and  consistent  support  of 
a  considerable  party.  In  later  years,  apart  from 
open  deserters  from  the  free  and  uncompromising 
pursuit  of  truth  like  Virchow,  a  school  of  zoologists 
and  botanists  has  been  formed  that  will  not  re- 
cognise in  Darwinism  a  reduction  of  vital  phe- 
nomena to  the  simple  chemico-physical  laws  of 
the  rest  of  nature.  They  look  upon  it  partly  as 
inaccurate  in  its  allegations  of  fact,  partly  as  a 
nebulous  confusion,  if  not,  as  I  have  already  said, 
as  a  false  mysticism  or  metaphysic.  In  the  opinion 
of  these  critics,  whose  own  confused  ideas  very 
often  leave  little  to  be  desired  in  point  of  nebulosity, 
and  who  frequently  try  to  drive  out  the  devil  by 
means  of  the  devil's  grandmother  (a  matter  we 
cannot  go  into  here),  Haeckel  had  made  a  great 
mistake  in  thinking  that  Darwinism  would  solve 
the  Du  Bois-Yirchow  problem  of  reducing  all  living 
things  to  the  laws  of  lifeless  matter.  Even  these, 
however,  must  candidly  acknowledge  that  in  doing 
so  he  was  the  victim  of  his  consistent  and  honour- 
able inquiry.  At  all  events  he  must  logically  have 
seen  the  correct  line  at  that  time  as  it  is  recognised 


198  HAECKEL 

to-day  by  this  anti-Darwinian  but  professedly 
mechanical  school.  His  individual  error  can  only 
have  been  that  he  was  deceived  as  to  the  true 
course  of  the  line,  and  so  clung  to  Darwinism. 
However,  we  have  said  enough  on  this  point. 

Haeckel  himself,  at  the  time  he  was  producing 
his  greatest  work,  saw  in  Darwin  the  absolute 
*^  open  Sesame "  to  all  the  doors  of  philosophic 
morphology.  With  this  Sesame  came  an  entirely 
new  impulse,  namely,  to  write  the  natural  history 
of  the  animal  and  plant  form.  It  was  just  the 
same  as  when  aesthetics  perceives  a  new  world, 
a  world  that  alone  is  worthy  of  it,  the  moment  it 
passes  from  the  making  of  a  mere  catalogue  of  the 
world's  art-treasures  to  the  knowledge  of  even  one 
single  law  of  artistic  creation,  in  virtue  of  which 
one  single  work  of  art  has  been  actually  built  up. 

It  is  impossible  to  begin  with  more  general 
considerations  than  this  book  does.  The  method 
of  scientific  research  generally  is  explained  in 
order  to  give  an  idea  of  the  new  Darwinian  mor- 
phology. With  a  calmness  that  must  have  made 
most  of  the  contemporary  zoologists  and  botanists 
shiver,  the  discredited  idea  of  natural  philosophy  is 
restored  from  the  lumber-room.  *^  All  true  science 
is  philosophy,  and  all  true  philosophy  is  science. 
And  in  this  sense  all  true  science  is  natural 
philosophy." 

The  various  periods  in  the  development  of 
morphology  are  coolly  schematised.  These  epochs 
are  characterised  by  the  vicissitudes  of  the  struggle 
between   the  simple    description  of  forms   in   the 


THE    "GENERAL   MORPHOLOGY"         199 

animal  and  plant  worlds  and  the  philosophic 
exposition  of  the  laws  that  lie  behind  these  forms. 
In  the  eighteenth  century,  under  Linne,  there  is 
a  period  of  purely  external  description  and  classi- 
fication. It  is  succeeded  in  the  first  third  of  the 
nineteenth  century  by  a  triumph  of  the  philosophic 
treatment  of  animal  and  plant  forms.  This  in- 
creases with  Goethe  and  Lamarck,  and  grows  into 
the  older  (and  now  generally  abused)  imaginative 
natural  philosophy.  Then  there  is  a  general 
reaction ;  with  Cuvier  comes  the  least  philoso- 
phical of  methods,  though  at  the  time  it  is  a  real 
advance.  While  Linne  only  gave  an  external 
description  of  forms  and  catalogued  them,  Cuvier's 
epoch  penetrated  to  the  inner  structure,  the  inner 
world  of  forms,  and  thus  rendered  great  service. 
The  last  and  greatest  workers  of  the  period, 
Miiller,  Schleiden,  &c.,  give  the  signal  for  a  re- 
action in  the  hour  of  its  chief  triumph.  Haeckel 
now  follows  this  up  as  "the  element  of  fact  in 
their  ideas."  With  Darwin  he  inaugurates  the 
fourth  epoch,  the  triumph  of  natural  philosophy 
for  the  second  time.  But  it  is  now  far  deeper  and 
clearer;  it  embodies  all  the  good  that  preceded, 
all  that  Cuvier  and  his  followers  have  done,  without 
the  irresolution  of  earlier  days.  Now  that  we  have 
studied  the  living  form  in  its  innermost  structure, 
as  was  never  done  before,  in  the  earliest  stages 
of  embryonic  development  in  the  ovum  and  womb, 
in  the  past  geological  periods  of  the  earth's  history, 
we  will  think  over  this  form,  think  with  all  the 
means  at  our  command,  reason,   synthesis — even 


200  HAECKEL 

imagination^  when  it  is  necessary  to  press  on  to 
the  great  final  conclusion,  a  new  synthesis  of  the 
defective  positive  data.  What  does  Johannes 
Mliller  say  ?  "  Imagination  is  an  indispensable 
servant ;  it  is  by  means  of  it  we  make  the 
combinations  that  lead  to  important  discoveries. 
The  man  of  science  needs,  in  harmonious  co- 
operation, the  discriminating  force  of  the  analytic 
intelligence  and  the  generalising  force  of  the 
synthetic  imagination."  That  is  spoken  from 
the  depths  of  Haeckel's  heart,  and  he  drives  it 
home. 

Nothing  is  more  amusing  than  to  find  Haeckel's 
later  opponents  saying,  apropos  of  any  particular 
question,  that  his  statement  springs  from  his 
*'  imagination,"  as  if  it  were  something  wholly  un- 
scientific that  the  naturalist  must  shun  like  the 
pest ;  or  again,  that  Haeckel  here  or  there  falls  a 
victim  to  the  deadly  enemy  of  all  scientific  re- 
search, natural  philosophy.  It  is  pointed  out  to 
him  as  a  great  discovery  which  he  must  approach 
in  a  proper  penitential  spirit — to  him  who  has 
discussed  these  matters  so  unequivocally  in  his 
first  theoretical  work. 

As  a  fact,  these  methodological  chapters  in  the 
first  volume  are  as  clear  as  crystal.  The  titles 
will  seem  strange  to  the  man  who  thinks  he  can 
do  without  any  philosophical  instruction  in  zoology 
and  botany,  and  wants  to  hear  only  of  cells, 
tissues,  stalks,  leaves,  bones,  scales,  and  so  on, 
in  a  general  morphology.  One  chapter  has  the 
heading:    "Empiricism  and  Philosophy  (Experi- 


THE    ''GENERAL    MORPHOLOGY"        201 

ence  and  Knowledge)."  Another  heading  runs : 
^'  Analysis  and  Synthesis."  Then  there  are  : 
^'Induction  and  Deduction,"  "Dogmatism  and 
Criticism,"  "  Teleology  and  Causality  (Vitalism 
and  Mechanism),"  ''Dualism  and  Monism."  The 
last  three  antithetic  headings  are  united  under  a 
general  title  as  ''  Critique  of  Scientific  Methods 
that  are  Mutually  Exclusive."  Such  a  title  illu- 
mines the  whole  situation  like  a  flash  of  lightning. 
Many  years  afterwards  Haeckel  himself  said  of  his 
General  Morpliology  that  it  was  a  comprehensive 
and  difficult  work  that  had  found  few  readers.  At 
least  the  whole  of  this  first  and  most  difficult  part 
of  the  book  must  be  defended  against  the  criticism 
of  its  parent.  If  it  is  far  from  adequately  appre- 
ciated to-day,  especially  by  professional  philoso- 
phers, that  is  certainly  not  due  to  its  style,  which  is 
a  model  of  clearness  in  the  eyes  of  any  one  with  the 
least  philosophical  culture.  The  real  evil  was  that 
people  did  not  look  to  it  for  instruction  from  the 
philosophical  side.  The  title,  "  Morphology  of 
Organisms,"  had  a  technical  sound.  The  empty 
space  betw^een  professional  philosophy  and  pro- 
fessional zoology  is  wide  enough  to-day,  but  it 
was  far  wider  thirty-four  years  ago.  Books  like 
Biichner's  superficial  and  popular  Force  and 
Matter,  or  Haeckel's  own  later  work,  the  History 
of  Creation,  that  can  only  be  regarded  as  a  brief 
and  incomplete  popular  extract  in  comparison  with 
the  General  MorjoJiology,  with  all  its  peculiar 
literary  charm,  stole  into  the  philosophy  of  the 
time  like  foxes  with  burning  straw  tied  to  their 


202  HAECKEL 

tails.  Professional  philosophers  have  written 
whole  libraries  on  them.  The  matter  recalls  a 
fundamental  defect  in  academic  philosophy :  it 
has  little  or  no  sympathy  with  real  scientific 
work ;  in  fact,  it  studiously  avoids  such  sympathy 
in  the  consciousness  of  its  own  weakness.  Hence 
it  has,  like  every  other  layman  with  general  inter- 
ests, to  wait  for  attempts  to  popularise  scientific 
work  before  it  can  know  what  is  going  on 
in  the  serious  camp.  The  man  who  wants  to-day 
to  criticise  the  mechanical  conception  of  nature 
should  first  make  himself  acquainted  with  these 
chapters  of  the  Morphology,  How  many  know 
the  mere  title  of  the  work?  How  many  even 
of  those  who  evince  great  hostility  whenever 
Haeckel's  name  is  mentioned  ? 

The  book  contains  much  more  than  the  metho- 
dological introduction.  This  only  takes  up  the  first 
hundred  pages,  but  it  contains  the  whole  pro- 
gramme. We  start  off,  therefore,  under  full  sail 
for  a  new  epoch  of  thought,  for  natural  philosophy  ; 
but  we  must  keep  an  alert  mind.  The  deeper 
task,  that  Darwin  only  gave  the  means  of  accom- 
plishing, was  to  reduce  all  living  things,  animal 
or  vegetal,  to  the  inorganic.  The  laws  of  life 
must  be  merely  certain  complications  of  the 
simple  laws  that  are  encountered  directly  in 
chemistry  and  physics,  and  rule  throughout 
nature.  It  must  be  one  of  the  first  aims  of  a 
general  philosophic  morphology  to  open  out  a 
path  in  this  direction. 

The  living  and  what  is  called  the  "  dead  "  must 


THE    "GENERAL    MORPHOLOGY"        203 

be  compared.  Linne's  three  rigid  kingdoms — 
animal,  plant,  and  mineral — needed  definitions  in 
harmony  with  the  new  ideas.  Haeckel  himself 
had  discovered  the  *'  monera,"  the  living  particles 
of  plasm  that  did  not  seem  to  have  reached  the 
stage  of  the  true  cell.  Here,  clearly,  was  the 
lowest  level  of  the  living.  At  the  same  time  we 
reach  the  most  complex  specimen  of  the  inorganic 
from  the  morphological  point  of  view — that  is  to 
say,  the  most  interesting  in  its  individual  form — 
the  crystal.  The  differences  begin  to  give  way. 
What  marvellously  similar  functions  !  From  the 
dead  mother-water  is  built  up,  purely  by  chemico- 
physical  laws,  the  beautiful  structure  of  the  crystal. 
From  the  lowest  living  particle  of  plasm  without 
any  special  organs,  as  we  see  in  the  radiolaria, 
are  formed  the  beautiful  siliceous  frames  that 
Haeckel  had  collected  in  such  quantities  at  Mes- 
sina. Is  it  more  than  a  hair's  breadth  to  pass  from 
one  to  the  other  ?  The  deeper  we  go  in  the  study 
of  living  things,  the  slighter  become  the  differences 
that  separate  them  from  **  dead  matter."  On  the 
other  hand,  the  higher  we  go  in  the  structure  of 
crystals,  the  more  striking  is  the  resemblance  to 
the  living  thing.  Two  chains  of  thought  seem  to 
be  started.  What  we  call  *'  dead  "  is  really  alive  : 
what  we  call  living  is  really  subject  to  the  same 
laws  as  the  "  dead."  The  solution  is  found  in 
complete  Monism.  Living  and  dead  are  not 
antithetic.  Nature  is  one ;  though  we  see  it  in 
different  stages  of  development.  We  call  one  of 
them  the  crystal,  another  the  cell,  or  the  moneron, 


204  HAECKEL 

or  the  protozoon ;  another  the  plant,  another  the 
animal.  Historically  it  all  hangs  together.  The 
same  laws  hold  sway  throughout.  In  framing  my 
arbitrary  definitions  I  can  say  either  that  the  dead 
is  living,  or  that  the  living  does  not  difer 
essentially  from  the  dead.  In  the  chain  of  living 
things  man  comes  from  the  primitive  cell,  the 
moneron.  This  in  its  turn  has  developed  from 
something  earlier — ^'naturally"  developed.  The 
very  idea  of  life  forces  us  to  seek  the  predecessors 
of  the  monera.  Hence  we  speak  of  "  spontaneous 
generation,"  as  what  was  dead  according  to  our 
ordinary  use  of  language  has  begun  to  live.  In 
point  of  fact  it  is  merely  development  of  a  unified 
whole.  There  is  no  gap,  no  leap,  no  act  that  is 
not  natural.  The  dead  and  the  living  never  were 
really  antithetic. 

The  insistent  statement  that  not  only  does  the 
living  approach  the  inorganic,  but  the  inorganic 
approaches  the  living,  is  quite  ''  Haeckelian." 
The  study  of  the  "  life  "  of  crystals  is  one  of  the 
best  parts  of  the  book.  Later  generations  will 
appreciate  it.  We  are  much  too  narrow  to-day 
when  we  merely  reflect  that  life,  even  the  life  of 
man,  can  be  traced  by  evolution  down  to  what  we 
call  dead  matter.  We  forget  that  this  ^^  matter" 
is  already  high,  since  it  potentially  contains  life, 
and  even  man,  the  crown  of  life.  Many  people 
imagine  that  the  derivation  of  man  from  *^dead 
matter  "  is  equal  to  turning  a  king  into  a  beggar. 
They  do  not  reflect  that,  on  the  other  hand,  a 
beggar  is  turned  into  a  king.     When  I  say  that  life 


THE    "GENERAL    MORPHOLOGY"        205 

arose  one  day  out  of  the  inorganic,  or  that  a  crystal 
was  turned  into  a  cell,  my  statement  really  involves 
the  complementary  truth  that  the  inorganic  poten- 
tially contains  life  in  itself.  Otherwise  we  have 
the  old  miracle  over  again  of  something  being  pro- 
duced out  of  nothing,  in  spite  of  our  spontaneous 
generation.  Haeckel  has  always  been  clear  on  this 
point.  His  later  studies  of  the  soul  of  the  atom 
and  the  plastidule  only  carry  out  the  absolutely 
logical  treatment  of  the  question  that  we  find  in 
these  chapters  of  the  first  volume  of  the  MorpJio- 
logij. 

Incidentally  the  question  is  raised  whether  the 
plant  or  the  animal  was  evolved  first.  Animal  and 
plant  are,  of  course,  not  rigidly  distinct  from  each 
other.  They  are  only  the  two  great  branches  of 
the  Darwinian  evolution  of  living  forms,  and  are 
united  at  the  bottom,  however  much  they  diverge 
above.  Gegenbaur  had  represented  this  years 
before  (1860)  in  a  figure  that  Haeckel  quotes  in 
his  Monogra^ph  on  the  Badiolaria  in  1862.  The 
whole  kingdom  of  living  things  must  be  conceived 
"  as  a  connected  series,  within  which  we  find  two 
lines  diverging  from  a  common  centre  and  repre- 
senting a  gradual  differentiation  and  development 
of  organisation."  The  terminal  points  of  these 
lines  (the  highest  plant  and  the  highest  animal) 
are  very  different  from  each  other,  but  the  dif- 
ference gradually  disappears  as  we  go  back  towards 
the  common  centre,  and  the  lowest  stages  in  each 
kingdom  can  hardly  be  distinguished  from  each 
other.     For    these    lowest    stages    Haeckel   now 


206  HAECKEL 

carries  out  a  plan  that  very  quickly  forced  itself 
on  him. 

He  forms  them  into  a  new  kingdom  of  life.  To 
the  animal  and  plant  kingdoms  he  adds  the  primi- 
tive realm  of  the  beings  that  showed  unequivocal 
signs  of  the  possession  of  life,  yet  were  neither 
animals  nor  plants.  He  gives  them  the  name  of 
*'  Protists."  To  botany  and  zoology  is  now  added 
protistology. 

The  name  ''protists"  [irom  protistoii,  the  very 
first)  is  familiar  to  every  one  in  biology  to-day.  If 
protistology  has  not  yet  been  securely  established 
as  a  special  branch  of  science,  that  is  due  to  the 
circumstance  that  a  strict  limit  cannot  be  deter- 
mined on  either  the  plant  or  the  animal  side,  so 
that  the  botanist  encroaches  on  the  province  at 
one  point  and  the  zoologist  at  another.  But  when 
we  remember  that  Haeckel's  protists  include  the 
well-known  bacilli,  on  which  whole  libraries  are 
accumulating  to-day,  it  is  clear  that  the  province 
must  be  definitely  marked  ofi  at  some  date  in  the 
near  future,  whether  one  accepts  Darwinism  or  no. 

These  important  innovations  in  technical  biology 
show  very  clearly  how  sound  and  fruitful  the  new 
''natural  philosophy  "  was.  We  have  to  go  back 
to  the  untenable  and  utterly  impracticable  systems 
of  Hegel,  Schelling,  and  Stefien,  which  were 
immediately  rejected  as  the  trifling  of  dilettanti,  or 
even  to  much  that  the  admirable  Oken  did  on  the 
scientific  side,  if  we  would  measure  the  whole 
distance  between  what  people  understood  in  the 
sixties    by    "natural   philosophy"   and    the  real 


THE    "GENERAL    MORPHOLOGY"        207 

reformed  philosophy  that  Haeckel  gave  to  the 
world.  This  becomes  clearer  at  every  step  we  take 
in  his  work. 

The  first  book  has  determined  the  method  that 
leads  to  morphology,  the  science  of  forms.  The 
second  has  ranged  the  organic  forms — protists, 
plants,  and  animals — over  against  the  inorganic  or 
^*  dead  "  forms,  as  far  as  this  is  possible  from  the 
new  evolutionary  point  of  view.  We  feel  that  the 
third  book  will  pass  on  to  Darwin,  and  explain  the 
world  of  organic  forms  by  the  Darwinian  laws  of 
evolution.  Then  the  programme  would  be  carried 
out  in  its  main  features. 

But  Haeckel  writes  two  whole  books  before  he 
comes  to  this,  and  they  are,  perhaps,  the  most 
characteristic  in  the  work.  He  only  "adopted" 
the  theory  of  evolution  in  the  sense  that  he  applied 
it  far  more  thoroughly  than  Darwin  to  practical 
problems.  In  these  two  books  he  is  entirely  him- 
self. They  are,  at  the  same  time,  the  most  diffi- 
cult in  the  work.  Even  to-day  they  place  him  on 
a  lofty  and  lonely  height  apart  from  the  great  and 
strenuous  controversy  over  Darwinism.  I  believe 
that  the  time  will  yet  come  that  will  fully  appre- 
ciate these  books.  Through  them  Haeckel  will 
play  a  part  in  philosophy  of  which  we  have  at 
present  no  prevision. 

There  is  a  word  that  is  inseparable  from  the 
word  "  form  " — individuality.  Morphology,  which 
does  not  analyse,  but  studies  the  form-unities  as  a 
whole  in  the  sense  of  Goethe's  definition,  comes 
from  the  nature  of  things  to  deal  with  the  indi- 


208  HAECKEL 

vidual.  In  our  artistic  illustration  the  Venus  of 
Milo,  as  a  form-unity,  is  an  aesthetic  individuality. 
When  its  form  is  destroyed,  its  individuality 
perishes. 

Let  us  apply  this  to  any  one  of  the  higher 
plants  or  animals.  Take  a  turtle,  for  instance.  A 
definite  individual  embodies  the  definite  form  to 
which  I  give  the  name.  This  form  as  such  is 
entirely  lost  if  I  cut  up  the  turtle  until  it  is  un- 
recognisable. The  limit  of  morphological  study 
seems  to  be,  just  as  in  the  case  of  the  Venus  of 
Milo,  the  integrity  of  the  individual  turtle.  Yet 
in  the  living  turtle  we  find  an  enormous  difference. 

If  I  grind  the  Venus  of  Milo  into  dust,  I  am  at 
once  in  a  totally  different  world  w4th  this  dust.  I 
am  amongst  the  raw  material  of  nature,  untouched 
by  aesthetic  influence.  From  this  calcareous  powder 
I  can,  in  reality  or  imagination,  pass  on  to  the 
world  of  crystals,  molecules,  and  atoms.  In  that 
case  I  shall  have  done  with  aesthetic  morphology. 
I  come  to  the  morphology  of  the  inorganic,  a  very 
different  branch.  What  do  we  find  in  the  case  of 
the  living  turtle  ? 

It  is  true  that  I  can  break  up  the  turtle  into 
simple  chemical  substances.  In  that  case  I  make 
the  same  transition ;  I  abandon  organic  morpho- 
logy, and  pass,  with  the  same  salto  mortale  as  in 
the  case  of  the  Venus  of  Milo,  to  the  lower  science 
of  inorganic  morphology. 

But  when  I  examine  the  structure  of  the  living 
individual  turtle  before  me  I  notice  a  special 
feature.     Let  us  suppose  that  I  break  up  the  Venus 


THE    "GENERAL    MORPHOLOGY"        209 

of  Milo  only  to  a  certain  degree;  or,  with  less 
vandalism,  I  do  not  break  it  up,  but  light  up  its 
inner  structure  to  some  extent  by  a  sort  of  Rontgen- 
ray  apparatus.  And  suppose  I  found  that  this  one 
aesthetic  individuality  is  made  up  of  millions  of 
much  smaller  and  aesthetically  finer  and  more  unified 
images.  I  do  not  mean  of  millions  of  repetitions 
of  the  large  Venus  in  miniature,  but  of  real  and 
unmistakable  little  works  of  art,  each  of  which, 
regarded  separately  and  without  any  injury  to  its 
narrower  individuality,  might  be  just  as  excellent 
a  subject  for  aesthetic  examination  as  the  whole 
Venus. 

This  is,  of  course,  nonsense  as  regards  the  Venus 
of  Milo.  There  is  nothing  of  the  kind  in  it.  I 
have  given  the  paradoxical  supposition  merely  for 
the  purpose  of  showing  what  we  really  find  in  the 
case  of  the  turtle. 

When  the  organic  individual  turtle  is  closely 
studied  it  breaks  up  first  into  so  many  simpler 
organic  individuals,  which  undoubtedly  belong  as 
such  to  the  province  of  organic  morphology.  They 
are  the  cells.  The  theory  of  Schleiden,  Schwann, 
and  Virchow  here  comes  into  direct  touch  with 
morphology.  Every  higher  animal  or  plant  has 
its  own  individuality ;  and  within  this  individuality 
there  is  a  conglomerate,  a  community,  or  a  state,  of 
individuals  of  a  lower  order,  that  have  their  own 
life  and  their  corresponding  individual  life-form. 
Man  himself,  the  highest  of  animals,  is  a  cell-state. 
So  Virchow  taught.  Each  one  of  us  is  an  in- 
dividual, and  as  such   an  object   of   morphology. 

U 


210  HAECKEL 

The  cell,  each  single  cell  in  each  of  us,  is  also  an 
individual,  and  as  such  is  equally  an  object  of 
morphology.  Hence  it  is  the  task  of  the  morpho- 
logy of  organisms,  not  only  to  describe  these  higher 
individualities  as  such,  but  also  to  look  on  them  as 
glass-houses,  as  it  were,  with  so  many  shelves, 
divisions,  and  smaller  houses  within  of  a  lower 
rank.  These  internal  arrangements  have  to  be 
described,  piece  by  piece,  with  the  same  fidelity. 

This  will  probably  suffice  to  convey  a  general 
idea  of  the  subject.  Clearly,  the  great  work  that 
ought  to  form  the  general  part  of  morphology  at 
this  point  was  the  precise  determination  of  all 
these  various  layers  of  individuality  that  are  found 
in  the  animals,  plants,  and  protists,  and,  as  we 
rise  upward,  enter  into  more  and  more  complex 
relations  to  each  other. 

The  difference  between,  say,  a  turtle  or  a  man 
and  the  cell  which  combines  in  its  millions  to 
form  them  is  not  the  only  one.  Between  them 
we  seemed  to  find  individualised,  or  almost  indi- 
vidualised, links.  Think  of  the  idea  of  an  organ. 
What  is  my  heart  ?  It  is  made  of  a  number  of 
cell-individuals,  like  my  whole  frame.  But  these 
cells  form  a  sort  of  intermediate  individuality  in 
me.  We  may  go  further.  What  is  a  segment 
of  a  worm?  What  is  an  arm  of  a  star-fish? 
They  have  so  much  independence  that  they  can 
continue  to  live,  rapidly  producing  new  cells  and 
forming  a  new  worm  or  star-fish  of  the  higher 
individual  type,  if  they  are  cut  ofi.  The  arrange- 
ment is   still   more  difficult   in   the    case   of  the 


THE    ''GENERAL    MORPHOLOGY"        211 

plant.  Where  in  their  case  shall  we  find  the 
stages  of  individuality  that  correspond  to  the 
animal-human  ?  The  cells  are  distinct  in  both 
cases.  The  individual  plant-cell  corresponds  to 
the  individual  animal-cell.  But  what  is  there  in 
the  plant  that  corresponds  to  me,  as  the  animal- 
human  multicellular  individual  ?  Does  the  oak- 
tree,  for  instance?  Certainly,  the  oak  is  an 
individual.  But  it  seems  that  it  is  the  single 
sprout  of  it  that  corresponds  to  what  I  am. 
What  is  the"  relation  of  the  tree  to  this  sprout  ? 

Here  our  ideas  grow  dim  and  confused.  We 
human^individuals  unite  to  form  certain  higher 
communities.  The  word  ^^  social  "  reminds  us  of 
the  fact :  then  we  have  the  nation,  the  race, 
humanity.  At  least  the  earlier  of  these  stages 
certainly  perform  various  combined  functions, 
and  are  understood  to  form,  or  wish  to  form, 
new  individuals.  We  speak  of  the  social  organism, 
the  body  of  the  people,  the  soul  of  the  people, 
and  so  on. 

We  see  that  still  more  clearly  in  the  case  of 
the  animals  about  us.  Individuals,  that  corre- 
spond to  our  conception  of  an  individual  man, 
combine  and  form  stocks  and  colonies,  with 
division  of  labour.  We  find  this  in  the  medusae, 
corals,  anemones,  tunicates,  and  vermalians.  One 
of  these  animal  stocks,  to  which  our  human  social 
combinations  only  correspond  in  a  much  wider 
sense,  gives  us  a  stage  that  is  represented  by 
the  tree  in  the  plant-world.  Infinite  perspectives 
open  out,  and  also  infinite  complications.     Infinite 


212  HAECKEL 

problems  spring  up  for  morphology  to  deal  with ; 
it  must  make  its  way  through  the  labyrinth  of 
these  complicated  types  of  individualisation. 

The  matter  is  still  more  intricate  if  I  begin 
at  the  bottom  of  the  biological  series  and  proceed 
upwards.  I,  man,  am  an  individual  of  a  certain 
stage  in  my  own  collective  activity.  It  is  true 
that  I  am  made  up  of  millions  of  cell-individuals, 
but  when  we  look  at  the  whole  these  are  merely 
elementary  units.  But  take  a  being  from  the 
protist-world  that  is  too  lowly  to  be  either  animal 
or  plant.  In  respect  of  its  whole  activity  it  is  an 
individual  just  as  much  as  I  am,  and  therefore 
in  this  regard  at  the  same  stage  as  I.  At  the 
same  time  it  consists  of  a  single  cell.  The  dis- 
tinction in  me  between  unit  and  whole  does  not 
exist  in  it.  Its  unit  is  the  whole.  It  would  seem 
a  Sisyphean  task  to  reduce  all  this  to  a  system. 

Yet  that  is  just  what  Haeckel  has  done. 

With  crystalline  clearness  he  separates  and 
reunites  and  arranges  everything,  from  the 
primitive  organic  individual,  that  is  not  yet  a 
true  cell — the  monera  he  had  himself  discovered 
— upward.  Organic  morphology  begins  with  them 
as  its  first  object,  the  first  complete  individuality, 
the  first  "  form."  All  that  lies  below  it  is  beyond 
the  province  of  morphology.  The  last  conceivable 
organic  individuality  is,  perhaps,  the  atom  ;  and 
that  is  not  the  concern  of  morphology.  We  start 
from  the  organic.  Above  the  pre-cellular  indivi- 
duals and  the  true  cells  the  next  form-unities  are 
the  organs.     Above  the  organs,  after  a  few  subtle 


THE    "GENERAL    MORPHOLOGY"        213 

intermediate  stages,  are  the  "  persons."  Thus  a 
new  word  is  given  to  what  we  have  hitherto 
conventionally  called  an  "  individual,"  when  we 
wanted  to  denote  a  turtle,  a  bird,  a  man,  or  an 
higher  animal  as  a  whole.  To  this  corresponds 
in  the  plant  the  sprout.  The  stage  above  the 
^'person"  is  the  "stock."  We  might  also  call  it 
the  social  individual ;  in  the  plant-world  it  is 
the  tree,  in  the  coral  the  coral-stock,  in  the  human 
case  the  social  combination  of  a  number  of  men 
for  common  action. 

We  are  reminded  of  Virchow's  speech,  and  how 
*^  consciousness "  was  dragged  into  the  debate 
on  the  cell-state.  What  psychological  perspectives 
are  opened  out  by  this  doctrine  of  individuality  ! 
Each  form-unity,  each  single  individuality  in  the 
series,  with  a  soul !  Souls  combining  for  common 
action,  and  forming  higher  psychic  unities!  There 
is  no  detail  in  Haeckel's  whole  life-work  in  which 
he  speaks  more  boldly  and  freely  and  philosophi- 
cally than  he  does  here.  His  lucid  treatment  raises 
to  a  higher  stage  a  philosophic  question  that  has 
occupied  thinkers  for  ages. 

That  is  the  third  book.  The  fourth  takes  up 
a  different  subject.  Let  us  adopt  in  organic 
morphology  this  wonderful  theory  of  individuality, 
the  theory  of  stages  within  the  form.  Then  let 
us  turn  to  consider  impartially  the  vast  multi- 
tude of  living  forms.  How  can  we  now  arrange 
this  infinite  confusion  by  merely  looking  at  it  ? 
Artificial  classification  has  attempted  it  a 
hundred  times,  and  always  without  success.     On 


214  HAECKEL 

this  side  there  is  only  one  way  to  proceed — the 
mathematical. 

I  study  them  with  strictly  mathematical  figures. 
I  determine  their  axes,  and  the  mathematical 
aspects  of  their  forms.  Possibly  that  will  give 
a  practical  result ;  the  only  kind  of  artificial  system 
that  can  be  accommodated  with  the  Darwinian 
theory,  and  perhaps  render  it  assistance  by  the 
sharpness  of  its  lines.  Does  it  answer  ?  Take  a 
crystal,  a  specimen  from  inorganic  morphology. 
The  description  of  it  is  susceptible  of  a  strictly 
mathematical  form.  Now  take  a  star-fish,  a  worm, 
a  human  being.  We  find  that  even  these  organic 
structures  have  a  mysterious  relation  at  bottom 
to  certain  mathematical,  stereometric  forms.  We 
might  almost  say,  to  certain  forms  of  human 
thought.  Everything  in  the  organic  world  is  in  a 
state  of  flux.  But  through  the  whole  moving 
stream  we  can  trace  the  outline  of  one  stable 
element,  something  like  a  mathematical  idea.  A 
sort  of  Platonism  of  the  living  forms  vaguely  takes 
shape. 

Haeckel  speaks  of  lines,  axes,  circles,  radii,  and 
all  kinds  of  rhythmic  structures.  It  does  seem  that 
the  countless  individual  forms  of  living  things  fit 
into  a  scheme  of  a  limited  number  of  mathematical 
forms.  Strictly  speaking  this  is  not  a  real  mor- 
phology of  living  things.  We  only  find  these  clear 
and  rigid  forms  schematically  in  the  wild  profu- 
sion of  forms  of  the  protists,  plants,  and  animals. 
They  are  only  a  reminiscence  of  the  laws  of  the 
purely  inorganic,  which  the  eye   of  the   observer 


THE    -GENERAL    MORPHOLOGY"        215 

just  detects  as  the  lowest  stratum.  Hence 
Haeckel  calls  this  section  the  ^'promorphology  " 
of  organisms. 

It  is  true  that  this  section,  which  essays  to 
compress  all  living  things  into  a  very  simple 
scheme,  is  the  hardest  to  read  in  the  whole  work. 
A  number  of  strange  and  difficult  words  have  to 
be  invented  for  this  stereometric  scheme  to  which 
he  would  reduce  the  animal  and  plant  forms. 
Haeckel  himself  declared,  twenty  years  afterwards 
(in  the  second  part  of  the  Monograph  on  the  Badio- 
laria),  that  this  stereometry  of  organic  forms  had 
found  little  favour  in  biology  "  especially  on 
account  of  the  difficult  and  complicated  nomen- 
clature." But  he  had  complete  confidence  as  to 
the  substance  of  it,  even  after  so  great  a  lapse  of 
time. 

In  point  of  fact  we  have  here,  it  seems  to  me, 
a  gigantic  preparatory  work,  not  so  much  for  the 
strict  purpose  of  classification,  as  for  a  real 
philosophy  of  botany  and  zoology  that  will  be 
founded  some  day.  This  recurrence  of  sharp 
stereometric  structures,  not  only  in  the  crystal, 
but  also,  if  less  clearly,  in  the  biological  world, 
will  one  day  prove  an  important  source  of  know- 
ledge, in  a  sense  that  is  not  even  clear  in 
Haeckel  himself. 

We  are  already  entering  upon  a  period  that 
has  a  ghmpse  of  the  truth  that  the  deepest  power 
of  Beethoven's  music,  or  Groethe's  poetry,  or 
Raphael's  painting,  or  Michael  Angelo's  sculpture 
is  a  mysterious  revelation  of  the  most  subtle  mathe- 


216  HAECKEL 

matical  relations  and  effects — produced  without 
conscious  perception  of  these  relations,  though  a 
human  mind  is  at  work  in  them.  In  spite  of  all 
our  ^'  consciousness,"  the  obscure  intuitive  power 
at  work  in  these  human  artistic  achievements 
differs  very  little  from  the  curious  force  with 
which  a  radiolarian  builds  up  its  little  house  in  the 
deep  sea  or  a  caseworm  fits  on  its  fine,  rhythmic, 
snail-like  coat.  In  both  we  have  the  same  pro- 
found, crystal-like  constructive  power  that  brought 
forth  the  wings  of  the  butterfly,  the  feathers  of 
the  bird,  the  bodily  frame  of  all  the  animals  and 
plants,  that  harmonises  so  well  with  strict  mathe- 
matical forms.  In  Beethoven  and  Eaphael  it  is 
not  more  conscious  or  unconscious,  not  clearer  or 
vaguer,  not  more  mystical  or  more  natural,  than 
in  the  poorest  worm  or  the  microscopically  small 
radiolarian.  The  9Bsthetics  of  the  twentieth  cen-  i 
tury  will  take  up  these  ideas. 

•  •  •  •  • 

It  is  a  great  work.  How  few  there  are  in  the 
whole  of  the  nineteenth  century  that  show  the 
wealth  of  ideas  we  find  in  the  first  volume  alone.* 
And  this  is  only  one  volume.  We  have  as  yet 
said  nothing   of   the  idea  that  is  of  the  greatest 

*  The  reader  may  be  interested  to  know  that  Haeckel  gives 
a  popular  summary  of  his  early  work  on  individuality  and  on 
the  mathematical  types  of  organisms  in  a  more  recent  work. 
This  has  been  translated  into  English  with  the  title  The 
Wonders  of  Life.  The  two  chapters  that  deal  with  these 
questions  are  omitted  from  the  abridged  cheap  edition. 
[Trans.] 


■  ■pp.,^wBBB 

in... 

■  ill 

1   Wr^-Wi''m^ 

i^-4^3 

.. .  ir 

Al^SiSi^ 

^  "v^"^^ 

^ 

^r:::^^! 

fe'  '  i 

■ 

-J 

1 

i 

^^^^H 

^r-^ 

^^^P^ 

3^^^  ^^v^-'SflF- 

^ 

1^              fl 

^:?                  ^: 

■b 

^^\^  ] 

P 

■•■^•^.Vak . 

H: 

Kj                    "^si^l! 

^g 

i  J 

t 

^^        *^.    N 

P^5^^^  "*  "^i'SM 

■■  * 

M%* 

r-    -***;;*""■•; 

'*' 

S^^l 

» 

^^^^|g\T 

"^^Pyj'  --j^J^- 

^ 

Xi                 .'.        •                                                 -^ 

:>^-.-^ 

^ 

M                                            ' 

ISPJBfe^  •'^jS*\,    :?f  ^  '                                                » 

1         ■     -"w*-''^"                                             '      ■ 

vWal 

I^^K.               ^^^^H 

J^^^^^BML:  '^-1  »    '  ^ 

s^^^ 

r 

^ 

'~^^- 

^^^^ 

'■•V- 

;^^,. 

-;! 

^ 

■ 

^^^57^^^^^^^^^ 

9 

< 
z 


< 

< 


<: 


u 

o 
hi 


THE    "GENERAL    MORPHOLOGY"        217 

consequence  in  connection  with  Haeckel's  own 
development.  He  was  a  Darwinian  from  1862 
onwards.  After  1866  and  the  publication  of 
the  General  Morplwlogy  we  find  him  dominated 
in  all  his  work  by  one  single  idea  from  the 
Darwinian  group.  He  brought  this  idea  so 
effectively  to  the  front,  improved  and  developed 
it  so  assiduously,  and  applied  it  in  so  many  ways, 
that  it  has  come  to  be  regarded  as  his  own  most 
characteristic  work.  It  is  inseparable  from  his 
name.  Whatever  the  future  may  be,  wherever 
Haeckel's  name  is  uttered  people  will  add  the 
phrase  that  was  made  peculiarly  his  after  1866, 
that  colours  and  pervades  all  his  works — technical, 
popular,  polemical,  or  philosophical — as  much  as 
the  word  "  Monism."  It  is  the  phrase  :  the  bio- 
genetic law. 

Here  and  there  even  in  the  first  volume  of  the 
Morplwlogy  a  note  is  struck  that  the  reader  cannot 
clearly  understand.  It  increases  in  the  second 
volume  until  it  dominates  the  whole  book. 

The  phrase  is  known  far  and  wide  to-day.  This 
is  partly  due  to  Haeckel's  own  insistence  on  it, 
but  perhaps  still  more  to  the  real  value  of  the 
idea  itself.  It  crops  up  in  a  hundred  different 
fields — psychology,  ethics,  philosophy,  even  in  art 
and  aesthetics.  I  have  been  able  to  trace  it  even 
into  modern  mysticism.  For  the  moment  I  will 
only  point  out  that  it  has  been  attacked  and 
misstated  with  real  fanaticism,  in  spite  of  the 
splendid  and  perfectly  clear  account  of  it  that 
Haeckel  has  given. 


218  HAECKEL 

The  proper  place  to  read  of  it  is,  as  I  said,  the 
second  volurae  of  the  Morpliology.  This  volume 
has  to  give  an  account  of  the  evolution  of  organic 
forms.  What  is  given  rather  casually,  almost 
Socratically,  in  Darwin  is  now  developed  into  a 
number  of  strict  laws.  This  method  of  expounding 
more  or  less  hypothetical,  new,  and  insecure  ideas 
in  the  form  of  laws  has  since  been  frequently 
attacked.  Some  have  been  led  by  it  to  take  the 
ideas  as  so  many  dogmas,  and  even  to  learn 
the  laws  by  heart  as  if  they  were  texts  in  Scripture. 
Others  have  then  laid  the  blame  of  this  dogma- 
tic interpretation  on  Haeckel  himself.  It  is  quite 
true  that  there  w^as  the  possibility  of  a  misunder- 
standing. People  do  not  always  think  for 
themselves,  and  the  statement  of  a  proposition 
in  the  form  of  a  law  may  prove  a  pitfall  for  them. 
The  blind  learning  of  them  by  heart  is  always 
mischievous.  On  the  other  hand,  it  might  be  urged 
that  the  statement  of  the  ideas  in  this  bald  way 
affords  the  best  opportunity  for  a  thorough  and 
rational  criticism  of  them,  precisely  because  they 
give  such  pregnant  expression  to  the  writer's 
meaning.  I  do  not  find  that  order  and  strict 
logical  definitions  have  ever  done  any  harm  of 
themselves,  whatever  it  is  that  is  put  in  order 
and  defined.  On  the  contrary.  People  must 
confuse  order  sometimes  with  real  dogmatism. 
Of  this  there  is  not  a  word  in  the  whole  book, 
while  at  an  important  juncture  the  reader  is 
actually  warned  to  be  on  his  guard  against  undue 
pressure.     "  In   this,"   we  read  in  the   twentieth 


THE    "GENERAL    MORPHOLOGY"        219 

chapter,  ^^we  do  not  wish  to  draw  up  a  body  of 
laws  of  organic  morphology,  but  to  give  hints  and 
suggestions  for  drawing  them  up.  A  science  that 
is  yet  only  in  its  cradle,  like  the  morphology  of 
organisms,  will  have  many  important  changes 
to  undergo  before  it  can  venture  to  claim  for  its 
general  propositions  the  rank  of  absolute  and 
unexceptionable  natural  laws." 

However  that  may  be,  it  w^as  in  this  provisional 
definition  of  laws  that  the  famous  biogenetic  law 
first  took  shape,  and  with  it  a  spirit  entered  into 
Darwinism  in  the  narrower  sense  that  was  never 
again  detached  from  its  master,  Haeckel. 

Let  us  once  more  take  a  simple  illustration  from 
facts.  Take  a  green  aquatic  frog  and  a  fish,  say 
a  pike. 

Both  of  them  have  a  solid  vertebral  column  in 
their  frames,  and  therefore  both  must  be  classed 
amongst  the  vertebrates.  But  within  the  limits 
of  this  group  they  differ  very  considerably  from 
each  other.  The  frog  has  four  well-developed 
legs,  its  body  terminates  in  a  tail,  and  it  breathes 
by  means  of  lungs,  like  a  bird,  a  dog,  or  a  human 
being.  The  fish  has  fins,  it  swims  in  the  water 
by  means  of  these  fins  and  its  long  rudder-like 
tail,  and  it  breathes  the  air  contain,ed  in  the  water 
by  means  of  gills.  When  we  arrange  the  verte- 
brates in  a  series,  with  man  at  their  head,  it  is 
perfectly  clear  that  the  frog  stands  higher  than  the 
fish  in  regard  to  its  whole  structure.  It  is  lower 
than  the  lizard,  the  bird,  or  the  mammal,  but  at 
the  same  time  it  is  a  little  nearer  to  these  three  than 


220  HAECKEL 

the  fish  is.  That  was  recognised  long  ago  by  Linne, 
who  assigned  them  a  corresponding  rank.  The 
fishes  are  the  lowest  group  of  the  vertebrates ;  the 
frogs  belong  to  the  group  immediately  above  them. 
Now  let  us  see  how  one  of  these  frogs  is  developed 
to-day.  The  frogs  are  oviparous  (egg-laying) 
animals.  The  mother  frog  lays  her  eggs  in  the 
water,  and  in  the  ordinary  course  of  nature  a  new 
little  frog  develops  from  each  of  these  eggs.  But 
the  object  that  develops  from  them  is  altogether 
different  from  the  adult  frog. 

This  object  is  the  familiar  tadpole.  At  first  it 
has  no  legs,  but  it  has  a  long  oar-like  tail, 
with  which  it  can  make  its  way  briskly  in  the 
water.  It  breathes  in  the  water  by  means  of  gills 
just  like  a  fish.  It  is  only  when  the  tadpole  grows 
four  legs,  loses  its  tail,  closes  up  the  gills  at  its 
throat,  and  begins  to  breathe  by  the  mouth  and 
lungs  instead,  that  it  becomes  a  real  frog.  There 
can  be  no  doubt  whatever  that  the  tadpole  is  very 
much  more  like  the  fish  in  all  the  most  important 
particulars  than  the  frog.  Between  the  frog-egg 
and  the  frog  itself  we  have  a  stage  of  development 
in  each  individual  case  of  which  we  might  almost 
say  that  the  young  frog  has  first  to  turn  into  a 
fish  before  it  can  become  a  frog. 

How  are  we  to  explain  this  ? 

At  first  people  supposed  something  like  the 
following :  All  beings  in  nature  are  admirably 
adapted  to  their  environment  and  their  life-con- 
ditions. Whatever  be  the  explanation  of  it,  it  is 
a  simple  fact.     Now,  the  frog  lays  its  eggs  in  the 


THE    "GENERAL    MORPHOLOGY"        221 

water.  The  young  ones  develop  from  these  eggs, 
and  find  themselves  in  the  water.  The  most 
practical  adaptation  for  them  is  to  swim  about  by 
means  of  a  tail  and  breathe  by  means  of  gills  like  the 
fish.  They  do  not  reach  land  until  later,  and  they 
creep  on  to  it  and  have  an  equipment  of  the  oppo- 
site character,  with  legs  and  lungs. 

But  this  explanation  throws  no  light  on  the 
question  why  the  frog  lays  its  eggs  in  the  water. 
However,  there  might  be  some  utility  or  other, 
some  need  for  protection,  for  instance,  in  that. 
Let  us  take  a  few  other  cases. 

There  are  several  species  of  tree-frogs,  and  toads, 
and  closely  related  amphibia  like  the  salamanders, 
that  do  not  lay  their  eggs  in  the  water.  Some 
of  them  bury  them  in  folds  of  their  own  external 
skin,  others  (such  as  the  Alpine  salamander)  retain 
them  within  the  mother's  body,  as  the  mammals  do. 
The  young  animals  develop  there  from  the  eggs. 
Even  there,  however,  where  there  is  no  question 
of  aquatic  life,  the  young  frogs,  toads,  and  sala- 
manders first  assume  the  fish-form.  The  young 
frogs  and  toads  have  fin-like  tails,  and  all  of  them 
have  gills.  There  seems  to  be  some  internal  law 
of  development  that  forces  the  frog  and  its  relatives 
to  pass  through  the  fish-stage  in  their  individual 
evolution  even  when  there  is  no  trace  whatever 
of  any  external  utility. 

Now  let  us  examine  the  matter  as  Darwinians 
and  believers  in  evolution. 

There  are  reasons  on  every  hand  for  believing 
that  the  frogs  and  salamanders,  which  now  stand 


222  HAECKEL 

higher  in  classification  than  the  fishes,  were 
developed  from  the  fishes  in  earlier  ages  in  the 
course  of  progressive  evolution.  Once  upon  a  time 
they  were  fishes.  If  that  is  so,  the  curious 
phenomenon  we  have  been  considering  really 
means  that  each  young  frog  resembles  its  fish- 
ancestors.  In  each  case  to-day  the  frog's  egg  first 
produces  the  earlier  or  ancestral  stage,  the  fish. 
It  then  develops  rapidly  into  a  frog.  In  other 
words,  the  individual  development  recapitulates 
an  important  chapter  of  the  earlier  history  of  the 
whole  race  of  frogs.  Putting  this  in  the  form  of 
a  law,  it  runs :  each  new  individual  must,  in  its 
development,  pass  rapidly  through  the  form  of  its 
parents'  ancestors  before  it  assumes  the  parent  form 
itself.  If  a  new  individual  frog  is  to  be  developed, 
and  if  the  ancestors  of  the  whole  frog-stem  were 
fishes,  the  first  thing  to  develop  from  the  frog's  egg 
will  be  a  fish,  and  it  will  only  later  assume  the  form 
of  a  frog. 

That  is  a  simple  and  pictorial  outline  of  what 
we  mean  when  we  speak  of  ''  the  biogenetic  law." 
We  need,  of  course,  much  more  than  the  one 
frog-fish  fact  before  we  can  erect  it  into  a  law. 
But  we  have  only  to  look  round  us,  and  we  find 
similar  phenomena  as  common  as  pebbles. 

Let  us  bear  in  mind  that  evolution  proceeded 
from  certain  amphibia  to  the  lizards,  and  from 
these  to  the  birds  and  mammals.  That  is  a  long 
journey,  but  we  have  no  alternative.  If  the 
amphibia  (such  as  the  frog  and  the  salamander) 
descend  from  the  fishes,  all  the  higher  classes  up 


THE    "GENERAL    MORPHOLOGY"         223 

to  man  himself  must  also  have  done  so.  Hence 
the  law  must  have  transmitted  even  to  ourselves 
this  ancestral  form  of  the  gill-breathing  fish. 

What  a  mad  idea,  many  will  say;  that  man 
should  at  one  time  be  a  tadpole  like  the  frog! 
And  yet — there's  no  help  in  prayer,  as  FalstafE 
said — even  the  human  germ  or  embryo  passes 
through  a  stage  in  the  womb  at  which  it  shows 
the  outline  of  gills  on  the  throat  just  like  a  fish. 
It  is  the  same  with  the  dog,  the  horse,  the 
kangaroo,  the  duck-mole,  the  bird,  the  crocodile, 
the  turtle,  the  lizard;  they  all  have  the  same 
structure.  Nor  is  this  an  isolated  fact.  From  the 
fish  was  evolved  the  amphibian;  from  this  came 
the  lizard;  from  the  lizard,  on  Darwinian  principles, 
the  bird.  The  lizard  has  solid  teeth  in  its  mouth ; 
the  bird  has  no  teeth  in  its  beak.  That  is  to  say, 
it  has  none  to-day;  but  it  had  when  it  was  a 
lizard.  Here,  then,  we  have  an  intermediate 
stage  between  the  fish  and  the  bird.  We  must 
expect  that  the  bird-embryo  in  the  egg  will  show 
some  trace  of  it.  As  a  matter  of  fact  it  does  so. 
When  we  examine  young  parrots  in  the  Qgg  we 
find  that  they  have  teeth  in  their  mouths  before 
the  bill  is  formed.  When  the  fact  was  first 
discovered,  the  real  intermediate  form  between  the 
lizard  and  the  bird  was  not  known.  It  was 
afterwards  discovered  at  Solenhofen  in  a  fossil 
impression  from  the  Jurassic  period.  This  was 
the  archeopteryx,  which  had  feathers  like  a  real 
bird,  and  yet  had  teeth  in  its  mouth  like  the  lizard 
when  it  lived  on  earth.    The  instance  is  instructive 


224  HAECKEL 

in  two  ways.  In  the  first  place  it  shows  that  we 
were  quite  justified  in  drawing  our  conclusions  as 
to  the  past  from  the  bird's  embryonic  form,  even  if 
the  true  transitional  form  between  the  lizard  and 
the  bird  were  never  discovered  at  all.  In  the 
second  place,  we  see  in  the  young  bird  in  the  egg 
the  reproduction  of  tw^o  consecutive  ancestral 
stages :  one  in  the  fish-gills,  the  other  in  the 
lizard-like  teeth.  Once  the  law  is  admitted,  there 
can  be  nothing  strange  in  this.  If  one  ancestral 
stage,  that  of  the  fish,  is  reproduced  in  the  young 
animal  belonging  to  a  higher  group,  why  not 
several  ? — why  not  all  of  them  ?  No  doubt  the 
ancestral  series  of  the  higher  forms  is  of  enormous 
length.  What  an  immense  number  of  stages  there 
must  have  been  before  the  fish !  And  then  we 
have  still  the  amphibian,  the  lizard,  and  the  bird 
or  mammal,  up  to  man. 

Why  should  not  the  law  run :  the  whole  ancestral 
series  must  be  reproduced  in  the  development  of 
each  individual  organism  ?  We  are  now  in  a 
position  to  see  the  whole  bearing  of  Haeckel's  idea, 
and  at  the  same  time  to  appreciate  his  careful 
restrictions  of  it. 

First,  let  us  see  a  little  of  the  history  of  the 
matter.  In  the  first  third  of  the  nineteenth 
century  a  number  of  pre -Darwinian  ideas  of 
evolution  flitted  about  like  ghosts  in  natural 
philosophy,  as  I  have  already  said.  The  evo- 
lutionary ideas  of  Goethe  and  Lamarck  are  well 
known  to-day.  Another  thinker  of  great  influence 
was  Lorentz  Oken,  who  established  the  custom  of 


THE    "GENERAL    MORPHOLOGY"        225 

holding  scientific  congresses.  Oken  had  been 
constantly  occupied  with  embryology,  the  science 
of  the  development  of  the  individual  organism. 
He  was  at  all  events  acquainted  with  all  that  was 
known  at  the  time  on  the  subject.  I  open  an  old 
volume,  wretchedly  printed  on  blotting-paper,  of 
Oken's  General  Natural  History  for  all  Headers 
(1833),  and  turn  to  a  passage  in  the  fourth  volume 
(the  first  to  be  issued)  on  page  470. 

We  read  that  the  caterpillar  of  the  butterfly 
resembles  the  animal  form  at  a  stage  of  develop- 
ment that  lies  below  the  insect — the  worm.  Oken 
says :  ' '  There  is  no  doubt  that  we  have  here  a 
striking  resemblance,  and  one  that  justifies  us 
in  thinking  that  the  development  in  the  ovum  is 
merely  a  repetition  of  the  story  of  the  creation  of 
the  animal  groups."  Oken  was  quite  aware  that 
the  chick  in  the  egg  had  gill-slits  like  the  fish. 
He  bases  his  idea  on  that  fact.  He  was  very  close 
indeed  to  the  theory  that  Haeckel  has  so  wonder- 
fully elaborated.  However,  he  was  greeted  with 
laughter.  His  theory  was  treated  as  an  absurdity 
from  1833  to  1866.  It  cannot  be  denied  that  he 
was  himself  partly  to  blame  for  this.  Oken  made 
two  serious  mistakes.  On  both  points  Haeckel  is 
perfectly  clear  and  sound.  Moreover,  the  theory 
of  natural  evolution  that  made  it  possible  for  us  to 
speak  of  ''  ancestors  "  was  still  a  Cinderella  in  the 
days  of  Oken.  No  sooner  was  it  rehabilitated  than 
the  principle  of  the  old  theory  of  embryonic  forms 
returned  once  more. 

Darwin  himself  at  once  appealed  to  it,  but  it 

15 


226  HAECKEL 

was  reserved  for  Haeckel  to  develop  its  full 
iraportance.  He  corrected  it  in  two  particulars. 
Oken  and  his  admirers  had  made  an  unfortunate 
mistake.  They  believed  in  a  genealogical  tree  of 
all  living  things,  but  they  conceived  it  on  the  lines 
of  the  old  classification.  Linne  had  enumerated 
in  succession :  mammals,  birds,  amphibia,  fishes, 
insects,  and  worms.  He  put  them  in  one  straight 
line,  which  is  certainly  the  best  arrangement  for 
general  purposes.  But  when  Oken  came  with  the 
idea  of  natural  evolution,  he  at  once  took  this 
series  as  the  outline  of  a  genealogical  tree.  The 
mammals  descended  from  the  birds ;  the  fishes 
from  the  insects ;  and  so  on.  If  that  were  really 
the  case,  the  highest  animals  would  be  expected  to 
reproduce  all  the  animal  and  plant  stages  in  the 
course  of  their  embryonic  development,  on  the  lines 
of  the  theory.  The  human  being  would  have  to 
be,  successively,  not  only  a  lizard  and  a  fish,  but 
even  a  bird,  a  bee^.le,  a  crab,  and  so  on.  This  was 
by  no  means  borne  out  by  the  facts,  and  so  the 
theory  seemed  to  be  discredited. 

Now  let  us  glance  at  Haeckel's  genealogical 
tables.  We  find  eight  of  them,  artistically  drawn, 
at  the  end  of  the  second  volume.  The  ^*  genea- 
logical tree"  is  given  in  the  form  of  a  branching 
tree,  or  as  a  huge  forest-like  growth  of  stems  some 
of  which  only  meet  in  the  ultimate  roots.  There 
is  no  trace  in  Haeckel's  designs  of  the  sort  of 
Eiffel-Tower  arrangement  that  the  Linnean  system 
involved.  At  the  bottom  we  find  the  protists,  the 
most  primitive  forms  of  life.     From  this  point  two 


THE    "GENERAL    MORPHOLOGY"        227 

parallel  stems  diverge,  that  of  the  animals  and 
that  of  the  plants ;  they  never  touch  each  other 
after  this  point,  and  so  cannot  be  expected  to  be 
reproduced  in  the  embryonic  forms.  Then  the 
animal  stem  is  split  up  almost  at  the  root  into  at 
least  five  independent  branches,  each  of  which 
pursues  its  separate  line  of  development.  One 
culminates  in  the  insects,  above  the  worms  and  the 
Crustacea.  A  totally  independent  stem  issues  in 
the  vertebrates,  and  this  in  turn  breaks  into  many 
different  branches.  Beyond  the  lizards,  for  instance, 
we  find  the  development  of  the  mammals  and  birds, 
which  run  on  as  separate  and  parallel  lines.  It 
was  mere  nonsense  to  expect  a  mammal  in  its 
embryonic  development  to  assume  the  form  of 
a  bird,  or  a  crab,  or  a  beetle,  or  a  mussel,  or  a 
medusa,  even  if  the  biogenetic  law  were  estab- 
lished ten  times  over. 

The  second  mistake  made  by  Oken  was  to 
declare  that,  whatever  it  cost,  the  law  must  be 
observed  everywhere.  He  examined  the  butterfly. 
It  passed  through  two  curious  embryonic  stages : 
first  the  caterpillar,  then  the  pupa.  The  caterpillar 
corresponded  to  the  worm ;  that  might  be  plausibly 
contended.  But  the  pupa  also  must  stand  for 
something.  Between  the  worm  and  the  insect  in 
classification  was  the  crustacean.  It  had  a  hard 
shell :  so  had  the  pupa.  Consequently,  the  pupa 
is  a  reproduction  of  the  crustacea-stage.  Such 
were  the  bold  chess-moves  of  the  older  theorist. 

Haeckel  first  established  that  there  was  such  a 
thing  as  the  biogenetic  law.     There  is  a  funda- 


228  HAECKEL 

mental  norm,  which  is  made  clear  to  us  in 
embryology  and  can  at  the  same  time  (remember 
the  instance  of  the  lizard-like  teeth  in  the  bird- 
embryo)  give  us  most  wonderful  suggestions  as  to 
the  line  of  ancestral  development.  But  it  has 
certain  limitations,  as  we  will  now  show. 

The  adaptations  in  the  sense  of  the  Darwinian 
laws  have  affected  the  animal's  embryonic  life  more 
and  more,  the  higher  the  tree  of  life  grew.  The 
long  recapitulation  of  the  ancestral  stages  often 
came  into  conflict  with  the  young  individual's  need 
for  protection.  The  result  was  that  the  biogenetic 
law  found  itself  restricted  by  the  Darwinian  laws 
of  adaptation.  The  too  lengthy  succession  of  an- 
cestral portraits  was  abbreviated  and  compressed. 
Whole  stages  of  embryonic  or  larval  development 
were  interpolated  that  had  nothing  to  do  with 
these  ancestral  portraits,  but  were  destined  for  the 
protection  of  the  foetus.  The  butterfly-pupa  is 
really  an  instructive  instance  of  this  description. 
It  does  not  reproduce  a  crab-stage,  nor  has  there 
been  any  stage  in  the  ancestry  of  the  butterfly 
when  they  lived  throughout  life  in  pupa-houses. 
The  pupa  is  simply  a  later  adaptation  in  the 
development  of  the  butterfly,  a  protective  stage  in 
which  it  accomplishes  the  transition  from  the 
caterpillar-form  in  much  the  same  way  as  the 
young  bird  develops  under  the  protection  of  the 
hard  egg-shell.  Thus  only  a  faint  and  shadowy 
trace  has  been  left  of  the  real  ancestral  forms, 
though  this  trace  is  an  extremely  instructive  one. 
But  we  must  not  expect  the  impossible  from  it. 


THE    "GENERAL    MORPHOLOGY"        229 

In  this  way  our  naked  and  crude  biogenetic  law 
assumes  a  more  finished  and  scientific  form  :  the 
embryonic  development  of  the  individual  is  a 
condensed,  abbreviated,  and  to  some  extent  modi- 
fied epitome  of  the  evolutionary  history  of  its 
ancestors.  That  is  more  modest,  but  it  is  a 
correct  expression  of  the  facts.  The  essential  point 
of  the  older  idea  was  not  in  itself  wrong ;  all  that 
was  done  was  ;to  explain  the  gaps,  and  leaps,  and 
contradictions  in  it. 

Now  that  Oken's  share  in  the  theory  has  been 
properly  appreciated,  we  may  notice  another  little 
historical  detail.  In  the  period  immediately  after 
his  time  these  ideas  were  ridiculed  by  men  of 
science,  great  and  small,  but  they  were  not  exactly 
*'  done  to  death."  Agassiz,  the  most  pronounced 
creationist  and  dualist  of  all  the  nineteenth-century 
zoologists,  expounded  them  occasionally  as  a 
curious  instance  of  the  divine  action.  In  fact,  he 
looked  upon  the  whole  of  zoology  as  a  mystic 
cabinet  of  curiosities — the  more  curious  the  better. 
Thus  he  came  to  play  with  this  idea  and  confirm 
it,  but  merely  took  it  at  first  as  a  fine  figure  of 
speech.  Agassiz  is  a  tragical  form.  He  survived 
Darwin,  much  in  the  same  way  that  many  an 
elegant  mot-de-salon  on  the  rights  of  man  survived 
the  French  Revolution.  Suddenly  the  whole  struc- 
ture of  his  ideas  seemed  to  fall  about  him.  Where  he 
had  played  with  roses,  he  now  found  torches.  He 
reeled  like  a  smitten  man,  and  cried  out  against 
the  horrid  monsters  that  brought  him  pain  and 
bitterness.     His  anxiety  began  with  Darwin,  even 


230  HAECKEL 

as  regarded  the  question  of  the  embryo.  But  there 
was  another,  a  man  far  away  in  South  America, 
that  increased  it — Fritz  Miiller. 

Born  in  1822,  one  of  the  finest  pioneers  in  zoo- 
logical work,  Fritz  Miiller  had  wished  to  become  a 
higher  teacher,  but  had  abandoned  his  plan  on 
account  of  the  oath  that  had  to  be  taken  by  every 
servant  of  the  State.  In  1849  he  wrote  to  the 
Ministry  requesting  that  he  might  be  allowed  to 
dispense  with  the  formula  '^  So  help  me  God, 
through  Jesus  Christ."  Meeting  with  a  refusal,  he 
went  to  South  America,  and  began  a  solitary  life  as 
a  student  in  the  primitive  forest,  and  sought  to  accu- 
mulate valuable  zoological  material.  Darwin  called 
him  ^*  the  king  of  observers."  In  1864  he  published 
an  essay  of  ninety-four  pages  with  the  title  For 
Darwin.  He  revived  and  improved  the  old  idea 
of  Oken's,  and  made  fresh  contributions  to  the 
natural  history  of  the  Crustacea  that  were  literally 
stupefying.  We  may  say  that  the  point  that  he 
believed  he  had  established,  in  virtue  of  the  law,  in 
regard  to  the  genealogical  tree  of  the  Crustacea, 
was  afterwards,  with  apparent  justice,  called  into 
question,  even  by  supporters  of  the  law  such  as 
Arnold  Lang.  That,  however,  did  not  diminish 
the  extent  of  his  influence  at  the  time.  Haeckel 
has  generously  acknowledged  how  strongly  he  felt 
that  influence  himself.  Nevertheless  all  that  has 
been  said  about  Haeckel's  priority  in  fully  applying 
and  shaping  the  law,  and  in  its  final  formulation, 
is  perfectly  correct. 

When  Haeckel  had  massed  his  material  he  had 


THE    "GENERAL    MORPHOLOGY"        231 

first  to  create  the  necessary  terms  for  arranging  it 
distinctly.  In  the  language  of  the  old  legend,  he 
called  the  day  day,  and  the  night  night.  To  the 
story  of  ancestral  development,  or  the  evolution 
of  the  stem,  he  gave  the  name  of  fhylogeny^  or 
stem-history  (phyloii  -  stem) .  The  word  circulates 
very  widely  to-day.  The  story  of  the  development 
of  the  individual  until  it  reaches  maturity  was 
then  called  ontogeny  (o7i  =  being),  which  coincides 
generally  with  embryology  (though  it  may  also 
include  the  growth  of  the  child).  The  law  then 
ran  :  Ontogeny  is  an  abbreviated  and  frequently 
disarranged  epitome  of  phylogeny.  Special  atten- 
tion was  drawn  to  the  qualifications  "  abbreviated  " 
and  *'  disarranged." 

Here  again  two  fresh  names  were  invented.  In 
so  far  as  the  embryonic  development  is  a  true 
recapitulation  of  the  stem-history,  it  is  called 
jmlingenesis,  or  repetition  of  the  ancestral  traits. 
When  the  development  is  altered  by  new  adap- 
tations it  is  called  cenogejiesis,  "  foreign  "  or  '^  dis- 
turbing "  development. 

It  has  been  objected  by  small-minded  critics  that 
Haeckel  forces  nature  to  mar  its  own  work.  The 
real  meaning  is  quite  clear  if  we  bear  in  mind  the 
blunder  of  Oken.  In  this  case  "  disturbed  develop- 
ment "  is  merely  an  expression  of  the  fact  that  the 
laws  we  invent  are  ideal  forms,  and  not  always  con- 
venient realities.  We  learn  by  heart  that  the  earth 
is  a  globe,  and  its  orbit  is  an  ellipse.  Neither  of 
the  two  propositions  is  strictly  accurate  ;  no  mathe- 
matical figure  even  has  objective  reality.     By  the 


232  HAECKEL 

sheer  attraction  of  the  water  of  the  ocean  to  the 
continents  the  earth  has  an  irregularity  of  shape 
that  it  is  barely  possible  to  express  in  words.  To 
call  the  path  of  the  earth  round  the  sun,  con- 
stantly altering  as  it  does,  and  still  further  com- 
plicated by  the  sun's  own  movement,  a  real  ellipse 
is  the  greatest  nonsense  conceivable. 

In  this  sense  every  natural  law  is  subject  to  dis- 
turbances, though  these  in  turn  are  the  outcome  of 
natural  laws.  If  we  do  not  cavil  over  the  name, 
we  find  that  the  idea  it  stands  for  is  of  the  greatest 
consequence  for  any  further  use  of  the  biogenetic 
law.  Unless  it  is  borne  in  mind,  the  law,  especially 
in  the  hands  of  the  inexpert,  falls  into  hopeless 
confusion.  We  read  so  often  that  the  ancestral 
history  is  identical  with  the  embryonic  develop- 
ment. The  one  is  a  recapitulation  of  the  other. 
This  supposed  law  is  then  applied  in  psychology, 
sesthetics,  and  many  other  directions.  If  it 
succeeds,  there  is  jubilation.  If  it  does  not  succeed 
(as  it  does  not  in  a  thousand  cases),  the  whole 
blame  is  thrown  on  Haeckel.  People  discover  that 
^'  the  biogenetic  law  breaks  down  here,"  and  they 
throw  over  Darwinism  altogether. 

The  second  volume  of  the  Morphology  is  the 
standing  palladium  against  all  this  nonsense.  It 
marks  off  the  real  readers  and  followers  of  Haeckel 
from  the  superficial  talkers  who  run  after  him 
because  he  is  famous,  and  will  leave  him  unscru- 
pulously for  any  other  celebrity  of  the  hour. 

The  book  must  be  read.  Even  in  this  second 
volume  an  incredible  amount  of  matter  is  com- 


THE    -'GENERAL    MORPHOLOGY"        233 

pressed.  An  introduction,  consisting  of  a  hundred 
and  sixty  pages  of  small  type,  gives  us  an  idea 
of  the  new  system.  This  is  the  first  scheme  of  a 
real  *^  natural  classification"  of  living  things. 
From  this  we  pass  to  special  morphology.  But 
this  fearless  sketch  of  the  specialised  genealogical 
tree,  according  to  the  new  ideas,  puts  general 
morphology  in  its  true  light.  We  are  made  to  feel 
that  it  is  not  all  mere  theory.  To-morrow — nay, 
to-day — the  whole  practice  of  zoology  and  botany 
will  have  to  be  remodelled  on  the  new  principles. 
OR  with  the  roof  of  the  ark  !  The  whole  museum 
must  be  cleared  out.  We  want  new  divisions,  new 
labels.  The  old  controversy  between  the  Nomina- 
lists and  the  Eealists  seemed  to  have  come  to  life 
once  more.  How  students  had  played  with  the 
word '' affinity  "  as  a  symbol.  The  lemurs  were 
"related"  to  the  apes,  and  to  other  groups  of 
mammals.  The  star-fishes  were  related  to  the 
sea-urchins,  to  the  encrinites.  The  word  had, 
in  fact,  led  to  a  certain  amount  of  arrangement ; 
the  stuffed  or  dried  or  preserved  specimens  in 
the  museum  were  placed  side  by  side.  Suddenly 
the  whole  thing  became  a  reality.  The  things 
that  were  "related"  to  each  other  had  really 
been  connected  historically  in  earlier  ages.  The 
lemurs  were  the  progenitors  of  the  apes.  Behind 
them  were  a  series  of  other  mammals.  Star-fishes, 
sea-urchins,  and  encrinites,  formed  a  definite 
branch  of  the  great  tree,  and  were  historically 
connected ;  not  symbolically,  but  in  a  real  extinct 
common  ancestor. 


234  HAECKEL 

It  was  a  vast  work.  A  single  man  had  at  first 
the  whole  kingdom  in  his  hands,  had  to  reject  the 
old  lines  of  demarcation  and  create  new  ones. 
There  was  a  certain  advantage  at  the  time.  Since 
Cuvier's  time  an  immense  quantity  of  new  dis- 
coveries had  accumulated  for  the  construction  of  a 
system  of  living  things.  Mliller,  Siebold,  Leuckart, 
Vogt,  and  many  others,  had  done  a  great  deal 
of  preparatory  work.  All  this  was  of  great  assis- 
tance to  the  man  who  now  came  forward  with 
courage  and  a  talent  for  organisation.  Never- 
theless it  needed  real  genius,  together  with  almost 
boundless  knowledge,  to  accomplish  the  task.  We 
must  remember  how  reactionary  (even  apart  from 
the  question  of  evolution)  was  the  systematic  work 
of  distinguished  and  assuredly  learned  zoologists 
like  Giebel  at  that  time ;  they  worked  on  in  a 
humdrum  way  as  if  the  more  advanced  students 
did  not  exist.  How  diferent  it  has  all  become 
since  Haeckel's  thorough  reform  of  classification  ! 
We  are  astounded  to-day  at  the  skill  with  which  he 
drew  lines  in  his  very  first  sketch  that  were  so 
near  to  the  permanent  truth.  I  need  only  point 
to  the  new  scheme  of  the  classification  of  the 
vertebrates.  A  good  deal  of  his  work  was,  of 
course,  bound  to  be  defective,  because  the  facts 
were  not  yet  known ;  for  instance,  in  fixing  the 
point  at  which  the  vertebrates  may  have  evolved 
from  the  invertebrates.  It  was  not  until  a  year 
later  that  the  discovery  of  the  embryonic  develop- 
ment of  the  ascidia  by  Kowalewsky  threw  light  on 
this.     Again,  there  was  the  solution  of  the  problem 


THE    "GENERAL    MORPHOLOGY"        235 

of  the  ultimate  root-connection  of  the  great 
parallel  animal  stems.  In  this  matter  Haeckel 
himself  brought  illumination  by  his  gastraea- 
theory. 

On  the  whole  this  systematic  introduction  to 
the  second  volume  would  have  sufficed  of  itself  to 
secure  for  Haeckel  a  prominent  position  in  the 
history  of  zoology  and  botany.  He  himself  was 
chiefly  proud  of  the  fact  that  it  was  the  first 
natural-philosophical  system  on  the  new  lines  to 
meet  the  rigorous  demands  of  academic  science, 
and  indeed  to  revolutionise  academic  science.  This 
enhances  his  complete  triumph  in  the  last  two 
books  of  the  volume.  First  man  is  introduced, 
with  absolute  clearness  and  decisiveness,  into  the 
system  of  evolved  natural  beings,  as  crown  of  the 
animal  world,  but  subject  to  the  same  laws  as  the 
animal :  a  vertebrate,  a  mammal,  whose  nearest 
relatives  are  the  anthropoid  apes.  Thus  at  last  the 
^'  system  of  nature  "  was  complete.  It  embodied 
the  unity  of  nature.  It  formed  the  framework  of 
facts  for  a  unified  natural  philosophy.  Monism. 
The  vioiion^  the  "  one,"  embracing  all  things,  that 
included  nature  in  itself  and  itself  in  nature, 
became  the  last  scientific  definition  of  what  people 
called  ''  God." 

Thus  the  volume,  which  had  begun  the  system 
of  nature  with  the  monera,  closes  with  a  chapter 
on  the  Monistic  God — '^  the  God  in  nature."  The 
conception  of  God  in  human  fashion  is  rejected. 
Man  is  merely  a  vertebrate,  a  mammal,  adapted  in 
his  whole  structure  to  our  little  planet.   A  supreme 


236  HAECKEL 

Being  to  whom  we  ascribe  omnipresence  could  not 
possibly  be  confined  within  the  narrow  limits  of 
this  vertebrate  and  mammal  organisation.  "When 
we  try  to  do  so  we  fall  into  unshapely  conceptions 
that  are  wholly  unworthy  of  the  most  exalted  of  all 
words,  ideas,  and  beings.  It  is  in  this  connection 
that  Haeckel  uses  for  the  first  time  the  phrase 
''  gaseous  vertebrate,"  that  has  so  often  been  quoted 
and  attacked  since.  He  means  to  say  that  we  are 
driven  to  such  debasing  and  senseless  definitions 
if  we  do  not  recognise  in  God  the  essence  of  the 
whole  system  of  things  ;  if  we  form  our  idea  of  him 
arbitrarily  on  any  particular  property  of  things 
within  the  system.  We  must  beware — as  he  ex- 
pressly says — of  such  confused  and  unworthy 
comparisons. 

'^  Our  philosophy,"  Haeckel  continues,  ''  knows 
only  one  God,  and  this  Almighty  God  dominates 
the  whole  of  nature  without  exception.  We  see 
his  activity  in  all  phenomena  without  exception. 
The  w^hole  of  the  inorganic  world  is  subject  to  him 
just  as  much  as  the  organic.  If  a  body  falls  fifteen 
feet  in  the  first  second  in  empty  space,  if  three 
atoms  of  oxygen  unite  with  one  atom  of  sulphur  to 
form  sulphuric  acid,  if  the  angle  that  is  formed  by 
the  contiguous  surfaces  of  a  column  of  rock-crystal 
is  always  120  degrees,  these  phenomena  are  just  as 
truly  the  direct  action  of  God  as  the  flowering  of 
the  plant,  the  movement  of  the  animal,  or  the 
thought  of  man.  We  all  exist  '  by  the  grace  of 
God,'  the  stone  as  well  as  the  water,  the  radio- 
larian  as  well  as  the  pine,  the  gorilla  as  well  as  the 


THE    "GENERAL    MORPHOLOGY"        237 

Emperor  of  China.  No  other  conception  of  God 
except  this  that  sees  his  spirit  and  force  in  all 
natural  phenomena  is  worthy  of  his  all-enfolding 
greatness ;  only  when  we  trace  all  forces  and  all 
movements,  all  the  forms  and  properties  of  matter, 
to  God,  as  the  sustainer  of  all  things,  do  we  reach 
the  human  idea  and  reverence  for  him  that  really 
corresponds  to  his  infinite  greatness.  In  him  we 
live,  and  move,  and  have  our  being.  Thus  does 
natural  philosophy  become  a  theology.  The  cult 
of  nature  passes  into  that  service  of  God  of  which 
Goethe  says  :  *  Assuredly  there  is  no  nobler  rever- 
ence for  God  than  that  springs  up  in  our  heart 
from  conversation  with  nature.'  God  is  almighty : 
he  is  the  sole  sustainer  and  cause  of  all  things.  In 
other  words,  God  is  the  universal  law  of  causality. 
God  is  absolutely  perfect ;  he  cannot  act  in  any 
other  than  a  perfectly  good  manner ;  he  cannot 
therefore  act  arbitrarily  or  freely — God  is  necessity. 
God  is  the  sum  of  all  force,  and  therefore  of  all 
matter.  Every  conception  of  God  that  separates 
him  from  matter,  and  opposes  to  him  a  sum  of 
forces  that  are  not  of  a  divine  nature,  leads  to 
amphi theism  (or  ditheism)  and  on  to  polytheism. 
In  showing  the  unity  of  the  whole  of  nature, 
Monism  points  out  that  only  one  God  exists,  and 
that  this  God  reveals  himself  in  all  the  phenomena 
of  nature.  In  grounding  all  the  phenomena  of 
organic  or  inorganic  nature  on  the  universal  law 
of  causality,  and  exhibiting  them  as  the  outcome  of 
'  efficient  causes,'  Monism  proves  that  God  is  the 
necessary  cause  of  all  things  and  the  law  itself.    In 


238  HAECKEL 

recognising  none  but  divine  forces  in  nature,  in 
proclaiming  all  natural  laws  to  be  divine,  Monism 
rises  to  the  greatest  and  most  lofty  conception  of 
which  man,  the  most  perfect  of  all  things,  is 
capable,  the  conception  of  the  unity  of  God  and 
nature." 

The  book  closes  with  these  words  and  a  quotation 
from  Goethe.  It  had  opened  with  a  quotation 
from  Goethe.  Goethe  runs  through  the  whole  of 
the  two  energetic  volumes  like  an  old  and  vener- 
able anthem.  The  stalwart  fighter  not  only  traces 
his  whole  Monistic  philosophy  to  Goethe :  not 
only  owes  to  him  the  very  idea  of  morphology.  In 
front  of  the  second  and  more  strictly  Darwinistic 
volume  he  has  a  dedication  '^  to  the  founders  of 
the  theory  of  evolution,"  and  between  Darwin 
and  Lamarck  we  find  the  name  of  Goethe.  It 
was  Haeckel's  firm  conviction  that  Goethe  not 
only  believed  in  the  unity  of  God  and  nature, 
but  literally  in  the  natural  evolution  of  the 
various  species  of  animals  and  plants  from  each 
other.  In  this  conviction,  which  claims  Goethe 
explicitly  for  Darwin,  he  has  never  been  shaken, 
although  his  own  friends  and  convinced  evolu- 
tionists (Oscar  Schmidt,  for  instance)  have  often 
opposed  him  on  the  point. 

Much  has  been  written  since  the  days  of  the 
General  Morphology  both  for  and  against  this 
Goethe-Darwin  theory,  but  I  cannot  see  that  we 
have  got  much  further  with  it.  I  still  find  that 
a  candid  study  of  some  of  Goethe's  smaller 
writings,    such  as   the   History   of  my  Botanical 


THE    "GENERAL    MORPHOLOGY"        239 

Studies^  the  criticism  of  D'Alton's  Sloths 
and  Pachyderms  (which  is  very  important),  and 
several  others,  compels  us  to  think  that  Goethe 
really  believed,  in  a  strikingly  Darwinian  way, 
in  a  slow  transformation  and  evolution  of  animal 
and  plant  species  in  virtue  of  purely  natural 
laws;  and  that  he  always  laid  great  stress  on 
this  idea  of  his  as  an  original  notion,  far  in 
advance  of  the  professional  science  of  his  time. 
We  not  only  have  several  clear  passages,  but 
the  whole  point  of  his  argument  really  rests  on 
this  idea.  Hence,  apart  altogether  from  the 
pedantry  that  tries  to  make  a  cabalistic  mystery 
out  of  Goethe's  works,  and  always  reads  B  for  A 
and  C  for  B,  it  does  seem  that  there  was  truth 
in  Haeckel's  first  view  of  the  matter,  in  spite  of 
all  the  ink  that  has  been  shed  over  it  and  the 
vast  amount  of  word-splitting  exegesis.  Darwin- 
ism has,  in  a  certain  sense,  its  German  side,  even 
apart  from  all  that  Haeckel  has  done  for  it. 
•  •  •  •  • 

This  was  the  book,  then,  that  the  deeply 
afflicted  author  wrung  from  himself  as  his  ''  testa- 
ment." It  was  written  and  printed  with  unprece- 
dented speed.  When  the  first  copies  were  issued, 
the  author  had  a  feeling  that  he  had  nearly  "  done 
for  himself."  He  could  not  sleep.  The  state 
of  his  nerves  gave  great  concern  to  his  friends, 
who  were  watching  him  most  anxiously.  With 
a  stolid  fatalism,  as  if  nothing  mattered  now,  he 
yielded  to  their  pressing  advice,  and  decided  to 
travel  for  a  time.     Far  away  on  the  blue  Atlantic, 


240  HAECKEL 

at  the  gate  to  all  the  glories  of  the  tropics, 
there  is  an  island,  Teneriffe,  that  was  counted 
one  of  "  the  isles  of  the  blest  "  in  the  old  Roman 
days.  A  huge  volcano  rises  from  it,  and  on  its 
flanks  we  find  all  the  zones  of  the  geography  of 
plants,  as  in  a  model  collection.  Humboldt  has 
given  us  a  splendid  description  of  it,  as  the  first 
station  of  his  voyage  to  the  tropics.  '*  The  man 
who  has  some  feeling  for  the  beauty  of  Nature," 
he  says,  "  will  find  a  more  powerful  restorative 
than  climate  on  this  lovely  island.  No  place  in 
the  world  seems  to  me  better  calculated  to  banish 
sorrow  and  restore  peace  to  an  embittered  soul." 
Haeckel  went  there. 

It  was  not  an  expensive  journey,  but  it  came  as 
a  fresh  greeting  from  Nature.     It  was  a  new  ocean 
after    the    long    studies    on    the    Mediterranean. 
What  might  it  not  afford  in  the  way  of  medusae 
and    other    zoological    prizes    when    the    general 
beauty   of    the    landscape,    that    had   enchanted 
Humboldt,    had    been     fully    enjoyed.      With    a 
mingling  of  his  overflowing  passion  for  Nature,  and 
the  gloomy  fatalism  that  told  him  this  would  be 
his  "  last  voyage  "  after  his  "  last  book,"  he  asked 
permission  to  leave  Jena  in  the  autumn  of  1866, 
when  the   printing   of  the  MorpliologTj  was   com- 
pleted, and  set  out.     It  was  no  more  to  be   his 
last  voyage  than  the   Morphology  to  be  his  last 
testament.     Although  still  subdued  with  resigna- 
tion in  his  inner  life,  he  came  home  in  the  spring 
of  1867  with  a  new^lasticity  of  body  and  mind, 
restored  by  the  influence  of  the  palms  and  bananas 


THE    "GENERAL    MORPHOLOGY"        241 

and  spurge,  and  braced  for  the  great  struggle  of  his 
life  that  was  now  to  begin  in  earnest. 

The  voyage  had  really  two  aims.  To  see  the 
volcano  above  a  palm-clad  coast,  with  the  Atlantic 
Ocean  bringing  its  medusae;  and  to  work  for 
Darwin. 

A  personal  connection  between  the  two  had 
already  been  formed  as  a  matter  of  course. 
Darwin,  almost  confined  for  years  to  his  isolated 
home  at  Down  owing  to  his  constant  ill-health, 
had  received  a  copy  of  the  Badiolaria,  and  the 
correspondence  had  begun.  The  work  had  a^yet 
met  with  little  encouragement  from  the  ranks 
of  exact  scientists.  It  cannot  have  been  a  matter 
of  indifference  to  Darwin  personally  that  so  dis- 
tinguished a  work,  a  real  model  of  professional 
research,  had  come  over  to  him.  Proofs  of  the 
MorpJiologij  were  sent  over  to  Down  before  the 
book  was  ready  for  publication.  Darwin  read 
German  with  difficulty,  but  in  this  case  he  was 
stimulated  to  make  an  unusual  effort.  At  last 
Haeckel  himself  made  his  appearance  at  the 
master's  home.  It  seemed  as  though  he  had  to 
visit  him  in  person  to  receive  his  blessing.  It 
was,  at  all  events,  a  happy  moment  in  the  history 
of  Darwinism  when  the  two  men  first  met  whose 
names  will  be  inseparable  in  literature. 

This  was  in  October,  1866  ;  Darwin  had  sent  his 
carriage  to  bring  Haeckel  from  the  station.  A 
sunny  autumn  morning  smiled  on  the  homely  and 
beautiful  English  landscape  with  its  bright  woods 
and  golden  broom  and  red  erica  and  evergreen  oaks. 

16 


242  HAECKEL 

Haeckel  has  described  their  first  meeting.  *'  When 
the  carriage  drew  up  before  Darwin's  house,  with 
its  ivy  and  its  shadowy  elms,  the  great  scientist 
stepped  out  of  the  shade  of  the  creeper-covered 
porch  to  meet  me.  He  had  a  tall  and  venerable 
appearance,  with  the  broad  shoulders  of  an  Atlas 
that  bore  a  world  of  thought :  a  Jove-like  forehead, 
as  we  see  in  Goethe,  with  a  lofty  and  broad  vault, 
deeply  furrowed  by  the  plough  of  intellectual 
work.  The  tender  and  friendly  eyes  were  over- 
shadowed by  the  great  roof  of  the  prominent 
brows.  The  gentle  mouth  was  framed  in  a  long, 
silvery  white  beard.  The  noble  expression  of  the 
whole  face,  the  easy  and  soft  voice,  the  slow  and 
careful  pronunciation,  the  natural  and  simple 
tenor  of  his  conversation,  took  my  heart  by  storm 
in  the  first  hour  that  we  talked  together,  just  as 
his  great  work  had  taken  my  intelligence  by  storm 
at  the  first  reading.  I  seemed  to  have  before  me 
a  venerable  sage  of  ancient  Greece,  a  Socrates  or 
an  Aristotle." 

They  were  delighted  to  meet  each  other,  for 
they  were  like  natures,  in  their  best  qualities. 
Darwin  had  more  passion  in  him  than  he  ever 
expressed,  and  behind  all  Haeckel's  impetuosity 
there  was  the  naive  and  yielding  temper  of  the 
child.  He  poured  out  his  anger  against  the 
stubborn  and  bewigged  professors  who  still  held 
out  against  the  luminous  truth  of  the  theory  of 
evolution.  Darwin  put  his  hand  on  his  shoulder, 
smiled,  and  said  they  were  rather  to  be  pitied 
than  blamed,  and  that  they  could  not  keep  back 


THE    "GENERAL    MORPHOLOGY"        243 

permanently    the    stream    of    truth.      At    heart, 
however,  he   was  delighted   with   his   fiery  pupil. 
They    were    to    fight    their    battle    shoulder    to 
shoulder  for  seventeen  years.     During  all   those 
years  there  was  never  the   slightest   disturbance 
of  their   friendship.     Darwin  knew  well  what  an 
auxiliary  he  had  in  Haeckel.     It  is  true  that  he 
wrote    him    a    wonderful    letter    occasionally,   in 
which  he   used   the   right   of   a   senior    to    warn 
Haeckel  not  to  deal  so   violently  with  his  oppo- 
nents.   Violence   only  had  the   effect  of  making 
onlookers  side  with  the  party  you  attacked.     We 
must  be  careful  not   to   be   too  hasty  in   setting 
things  up  as  positive  truths,  as  we  see  every  day 
people  starting  from  the  same  premises  and  coming 
to  opposite  conclusions.     But  he  was  generally  at 
one  with   Haeckel,    and  had   the   good   spirit   to 
acknowledge  it  openly.     When  Haeckel' s  History 
of  Creation  raised  up  the  most  extreme  parties, 
and  started  the   cry  that   a   distinction  must   be 
drawn  at  once   between   Darwin's   real   scientific 
ideas   and   Haeckel's    desperate    excursions    into 
natural  philosophy,  Darwin  said,  in  the   Descent 
of  Man,  which  he   had  begun  much  earlier,  but 
did   not   publish   for   some   time,  that   he   would 
never  have  written  his  book  if  he  had  then  known 
Haeckel's    History    of    Creation.      Haeckel    had 
anticipated    so    much    that    he    wished    to    say. 
And   when   Virchow   attacked   Haeckel   in   1877, 
Darwin  spoke  very  severely  of  the  opponents  who 
would   make    the   eternal    freedom   to   teach   the 
truth  dependent  on  the   accidental   conditions  of 


244  HAECKEL 

a  modern  State.  Haeckel  visited  him  twice  at 
Down.  On  February  12,  1882,  he  sent  Darwin 
his  congratulations  on  his  seventy-third  birthday 
from  the  summit  of  Adam's  Peak  in  Ceylon. 
This  was  his  last  greeting.  Darwin  died  two 
months  afterwards.  There  was  a  touch  of 
romance  in  this  last  communication  of  the  two 
great  warriors.  On  the  summit  of  the  mountain, 
almost  as  sharp  as  a  needle,  and  2,500  yards  above 
the  Indian  Ocean,  a  tiny  temple  of  Buddha  hangs 
like  a  stork's  nest  suspended  by  chains.  Buddha 
is  believed  to  have  left  his  footprints  on  the  rocks 
here.  The  Mohammedan  tradition,  however,  says 
it  was  done  by  Adam  as  he  stood  on  one  foot  and 
bemoaned  the  loss  of  Paradise.  In  front  of  this 
holy  trace,  a  depression  in  the  rock  about  a  foot 
long,  Haeckel  made  a  speech  to  his  travelling 
companions,  and  they  broke  the  neck  of  a  bottle 
of  Khine  wine  to  Darwin's  health.  It  is  no  little 
stretch  of  humanity's  pilgrimage,  from  Adam  to 
Buddha  and  on  to  Darwin. 

In  October,  1866,  Haeckel  had  a  companion  in 
a  teacher  from  Bonn,  Kichard  Greeff  (afterwards 
professor  of  zoology  at  Marburg).  They  took  ship 
from  London  to  Lisbon,  where  they  were  long 
detained  for  quarantine,  though  the  annoyance 
was  somewhat  relieved  by  the  discovery  of  an 
interesting  medusa  in  the  brackish  water  of  the 
Tagus.  They  then  went  to  Madeira  and  Tenerife, 
not  right  into  the  tropics,  but  where  they  might 
get  a  breath  of  it,  as  it  were.  Two  of  Haeckel's 
pupils,  who  both  became  well  known  afterwards, 


Ernst  Haeckel  and  his  assistant  Mikllcho-Maclay 

AT    LaNZAKOTE,    in    THE    CANARIES,    1867. 


To  face  p.  244. 


THE    "GENERAL    MORPHOLOGY"        245 

Miklucho-Maclay  and  Fol,  were  with  them.  Greeff 
has  given  a  full  account  of  the  journey  in  a  whole 
volume  (published  at  Bonn,  1868),  and  Haeckel 
has  written  of  it  in  two  articles,  one  of  which  (in 
the  fifth  volume  of  the  Zeitsclirift  cler  Gesellschaft 
filr  Erdkimde^  Berlin,  1870)  is  a  perfect  master- 
piece of  narrative  and  description  of  scenery. 
After  a  long  search  they  chose  as  the  best 
station  for  studying  marine  animals,  especially 
the  medusae,  the  little  island  of  Lanzarote, 
instead  of  one  of  the  chief  islands.  Here  they 
fished  and  drew,  in  the  manner  taught  by 
Johannes  Miiller,  for  three  months,  from  Decem- 
ber, 1866,  to  February,  1867.  It  is  not  exactly 
an  ideal  place.  ^'Imagine  yourself  dumped  down 
on  the  moor !  "  Haeckel  said  afterwards  in  his 
description  of  it.  A  piece  of  arid  land  that  looked 
like  a  strip  of  the  Sahara  in  the  middle  of  the 
ocean.  There  is  hardly  any  water,  and  the 
vegetation  is  correspondingly  meagre.  Across 
the  middle  of  the  island  stretches  a  chain  of 
volcanic  craters,  and  old  lava-fields  run  down 
from  them  as  far  as  the  coast.  Everything  of 
zoological  interest  in  the  place  was  to  be  found 
in  the  sea.  There  they  found  abundance.  As  in 
Messina,  certain  local  currents  drove  the  rich 
animal  plancton  together  until  there  were  literally 
rivers  or  streets  of  tiny  animals.  One  had  only 
to  dip  in  one's  nets  and  glasses,  and  bring  up 
whole  shoals  with  every  drop  of  water. 

Haeckel  had  come  chiefly  to  study  the  medusae. 
But  this  led   him   on   much   further  to   a   great 


2^6  HAECKEL 

zoological  problem.  In  his  General  Morjphology 
he  had  expounded  his  brilliant  ideas  on  the  subject 
of  individuality,  and  now  he  encountered  in  the 
flesh  one  of  the  greatest  marvels  of  animal 
individuality.  He  had  shown  how  the  higher 
individual  is  always  made  up  of  a  community, 
a  kind  of  state,  of  lower  individuals.  In  the 
simplest  instance  there  are  the  cells.  Each  of 
them  is  an  individual.  Millions  of  these  indi- 
viduals, banded  together  with  division  of  labour 
for  great  collective  operations,  make  up  the  human 
frame,  and  therefore  the  human  ^'  individual." 
In  the  same  way  others  form  a  beetle,  a  snail,  or 
a  single  medusa.  Sometimes,  however,  these 
higher  individuals  enter  in  turn  into  social 
combinations  to  form  still  higher  communities. 
Human  beings  form  social  commonwealths,  with 
division  of  labour  among  the  individuals.  Bees 
and  ants  form  their  communities  in  the  same 
way.  But  in  the  latter  cases  the  texture  of  the 
community  seems  to  be  much  looser  than  in  the 
preceding  one.  It  is  not  so  easy  for  the  imagina- 
tion to  grasp  a  human  commonwealth  or  a  colony 
of  bees  as  a  real  '' over-individual."  It  is,  there- 
fore, extremely  instructive  to  find  that  at  least 
one  animal  community  of  this  kind  is  of  so  firm 
a  texture  that  even  on  the  most  superficial 
examination  it  is  recognised  at  once  as  an 
individual.  This  is  found  in  one  of  the  groups 
of  the  medusae,  the  siphonophores,  or  social 
medusae. 

A   number  of   single   medusae,   each  of    which 


THE    "GENERAL    MORPHOLOGY"        247 

corresponds  to  what  we  regard  as  the  individual 
man,  combine  and  form  a  new  body,  a  social 
individual.  As  citizens  of  this  new  state  they 
have  introduced  the  most  rigid  division  of  labour. 
One  medusa  does  nothing  but  eat,  and  it  thus 
provides  nourishment  for  the  rest,  as  they  are  all 
Joined  in  one  body.  Another  accomplishes  the 
swimming  movement ;  another  has  been  converted 
entirely  into  a  reproductive  organ.  In  a  word, 
the  whole  has  become  a  '^  unity "  once  more, 
equipped  with  its  various  organs  like  any  large 
body.  Sometimes  thousands  of  separate  medusas 
enter  into  the  structure  of  one  of  these  wonders 
of  the  deep.  And  as  each  of  the  medusae  is 
generally  a  very  pretty,  flower-like  creature,  the 
social  groups  with  their  charming  colours  look 
like  floating  garlands  of  flowers  made  of  trans- 
parent and  tinted  crystal.  Their  beauty  would 
soon  fix  Haeckel's  attention,  but  their  bearing  on 
his  theory  of  individuality  would  give  them  an 
even  greater  value.  For  several  years  he  had 
searched  most  attentively  in  the  animal  world  for 
these  '^  over-individuals  "  of  the  highest  class.  In 
the  morphology  he  had  had  to  be  content  with 
an  old  illustration  of  something  of  the  kind,  the 
star-fish.  It  was  supposed  to  be  a  combination 
of  vermalians.  In  this  case  the  hypothesis  has 
broken  down,  though  there  was  a  good  deal  to  be 
said  for  it  at  first,  and  it  was  abandoned  by  him 
afterwards.  But  now,  when  he  saw  enormous 
numbers  of  siphonophores  in  the  animal  streams 
at  Lanzarote,  he  entered  upon  a  decisive  study  of 


248  HAECKEL 

the  meaning  of  these  real  ^'  social  animals."  A 
social  medusa  has  so  great  an  appearance  of  unity 
that  those  who  discovered  it  first  did  not  believe 
it  was  a  community,  but  a  very  complicated 
individual  medusa.  Vogt  (1847)  and  Leuckart 
(1851)  had  denied  this,  and  declared  it  to  be  a 
social  group.  But  the  controversy  was  still  going 
on,  as  there  was  much  difference  of  opinion  as  to 
the  meaning  of  *'  social  "  and  ^'  state."  Haeckel 
now  succeeded  at  Lanzarote  in  tracing  for  the  first 
time  the  development  of  one  of  these  siphono- 
phores  from  the  ovum.  He  was  able  to  show  that 
from  the  ovum  only  a  single  simple  medusa  is 
developed.  This,  then,  becomes  the  parent  of  the 
community ;  it  produces  the  rest  of  the  members, 
not  by  a  new  sexual  generation,  but  by  budding 
out  from  itself,  until  the  whole  garland  of  con- 
nected individuals  is  ready  to  constitute  the  new 
over-individual,  or  the  community.  These  lumi- 
nous investigations  were  published  three  years 
afterwards  (1869)  in  a  work  that  was  crowned  by 
the  Utrecht  Society  of  Art  and  Science  (The 
EmhryologT/  of  the  Sij^honojyhorce,  with  fourteen 
plates,  published  at  Utrecht).  But  Haeckel 
returned  time  after  time  in  later  years  to  this 
group  of  animals  with  such  great  philosophic  and 
zoological  interest.  When  he  had  put  before  him 
in  the  eighties  the  whole  of  the  siphonophores 
brought  home  by  the  splendid  Challenger  expedi- 
tion, he  combined  the  material  with  the  results  of 
his  own  studies  in  a  fine  work,  which  was  included 
(in  English)  in  the  publications  of  the  Challenger 


A    SiPHONOPHORE 

(Disconalia  gastroblasta.) 


To  face  p   248. 


THE    "GENERAL    MORPHOLOGY"        249 

series  at  London,  as  the  28th  volume  of  the 
Zoology  of  the  Challenger^  1888.  The  voluminous 
work  is  illustrated  with  fifty  masterly  plates,  some 
of  them  coloured,  by  Haeckel  himself.  The  most 
important  part  of  the  text  was  also  published  in 
German  at  Jena,  with  the  title,  System  of  the 
SiphonophorcE.  There  is  a  good  popular  account 
of  the  siphonophore  question  in  his  lecture  on 
*'  The  Division  of  Labour  in  Nature  and  in 
Human  Life"  (1869).  A  few  of  these  beautiful 
forms  are  also  given  on  coloured  plates  in  his 
illustrated  work.  Art-forms  in  Nature,  Every 
thoughtful  man  ought,  whatever  his  position  is 
as  regards  Haeckel's  ideas,  to  glance  at  this 
material  that  he  has  so  vigorously  and  clearly 
presented. 

While  he  was  conducting  this  research  into 
the  embryonic  development  of  the  siphonophores, 
Haeckel  made  certain  experiments  on  phenomena 
that  have  lately  been  made  the  subject  of  a  special 
"  experimental  mechanical  embryology  "  by  some 
of  his  pupils,  particularly  Professor  Roux,  of  Halle. 
He  cut  up  siphonophore  ova  into  several  pieces  at 
the  commencement  of  their  development,  and  saw 
an  incomplete  social  medusa  develop  from  each 
fragment. 

Thus  the  Journey,  like  the  earlier  one  to 
Messina,  brought  the  indefatigable  student  into 
touch  once  more  with  a  *'  philosophical  animal." 
This  alone  would  have  made  it  well  worth  the 
trouble.  How  many  more  of  the  kind  the  future 
might  still  have  in  reserve  for  him !     In  the  quiet 


250  HAECKEL 

months  at  Puerto  del  Arrecise,  on  Lanzarote,  he 
was  gradually  restored  to  his  spiritual  balance. 
Nature  had  taken  much  from  him,  but  she  offered 
him  an  inexhaustible  return.  His  elasticity  and 
vigour  of  frame  had  been  restored  before  he  left 
Teneriffe.  In  a  twenty-two  hours'  tour,  only 
interrupted  by  two  hours'  sleep,  he  had  climbed 
to  the  highest  summit  of  the  Peak,  in  such  an 
unfavourable  season  (in  the  November  snow)  that 
the  native  guides  would  not  go  any  further  in  the 
end;  all  those  who  were  with  him  except  one 
stopped  short  a  little  way  from  the  top.  The 
short  rest  at  the  summit  (4,128  yards  above  the 
sea-level,  on  the  icy  edge  of  the  crater)  was 
greatly  enjoyed  by  him.  He  could  see  over  a 
distance  of  5,700  square  miles,  as  much  as  one- 
fourth  of  the  whole  of  Spain.  **  The  extraordinary 
range  and  height  of  the  horizon  gives  one  a  vague 
idea  of  the  infinity  of  space.  The  deep  unbroken 
silence  and  the  consciousness  that  we  have  left 
all  animal  and  vegetal  life  far  behind,  produce  a 
profound  feeling  of  solitude.  One  feels  oneself, 
with  a  certain  pride,  master  of  the  situation  that 
has  been  secured  with  so  much  trouble  and  risk. 
But  the  next  moment  one  feels  what  we  reallv  are 
— momentary  waves  in  the  infinite  ocean  of  life, 
transitory  combinations  of  a  comparatively  small 
number  of  organic  cells,  which,  in  the  last  resort, 
owe  their  origin  and  significance  to  the  peculiar 
chemical  properties  of  carbon.  How  small  and 
mean  at  such  moments  do  we  find  the  little  play 
of  human  passions  that  unfolds  itself  far  below  in 


THE    "GENERAL    MORPHOLOGY"        251 

the  haunts  of  civilisation  !  How  great  and  exalted 
in  comparison  does  free  Nature  seem,  as  it  unrolls 
before  us,  in  one  vast  picture,  the  whole  majesty 
and  splendour  of  its  creative  power!"  Thus  he 
himself  describes  the  moment.  Something  of  that 
feeling  of  exalted  solitude  entered  into  his  life. 
He  stood  firm  and  undazed — come  what  might. 


CHx\PTER   VII 


GKOWTH   OF   IDEAS 


AT  Easter,  1867,  Haeckel  returned  to  Jena 
through  Morocco,  Madrid,  and  Paris.  He 
spent  a  few  of  the  pleasant  spring  weeks  at  the 
Strait  of  Gibraltar  and  in  the  South  of  Spain.  In 
the  fine  bay  of  Algeciras  (opposite  to  Gibraltar  on 
the  west)  the  current  of  the  Strait  brought  swarms 
of  interesting  medusae,  siphonophores,  and  other 
*^  plancton-animals  "  into  his  net.  In  his  solitary 
walks  through  the  mountain  forests  of  Andalusia, 
in  the  incomparable  Moorish  palaces  and  the 
cathedrals  of  Seville  and  Cordova,  Granada  and 
the  Alhambra,  he  gazed  on  that  wealth  of  Spain 
in  treasures  of  Nature  and  Art  which  had  excited 
his  boyish  imagination  in  the  vivid  pictures  of 
Washington  Irving. 

With  his  return  home  a  crisis  occurred  in  his 
career,  from  our  biographical  point  of  view,  such 
as  we  find  at  one  point  or  other  in  the  lives  of 
all  great  men.  Up  to  the  present  the  course  of 
his  life  has  advanced  steadily  onward,  so  that  the 
simple   chronological    order     afforded    the    most 


252 


GROWTH    OF    IDEAS  253 

natural  thread  for  our  narrative.  With  this  crisis 
his  activity  broadens  out  more.  His  ideas,  almost 
all  of  which  are  presented  in  the  General  MorjpJi- 
ology^  form  a  great  and  continuous  stem,  which 
throws  out  a  large  or  a  small  flower  on  one  side  or 
other,  according  to  the  stimulus  received.  His  life 
crystalHses  about  Jena ;  however  many  journeys 
he  makes,  he  always  feels  that  he  will  return  to  his 
centre  at  Jena.  Nothing  in  his  later  career  ever 
shook  him  from  this  ideal  and  personal  base. 

In  the  summer  after  his  return  to  Jena,  1867, 
he  married  Agnes  Huschke,  daughter  of  the  dis- 
tinguished Jena  anatomist.  He  shares  the 
happiness  of  this  second  marriage  down  to  the 
present  day.  Of  their  three  children,  the  son  is 
now  a  gifted  artist  at  Munich ;  the  elder  daughter 
is  the  wife  of  Professor  Hans  Meyer,  proprietor  of 
the  Leipsic  Bibliographical  Institute,  who  is  par- 
ticularly known  in  science  by  his  ascent  of  the 
Kilimandschars  ;  the  younger  daughter  is  still  at 
home  with  her  parents. 

He  never  leaves  the  University  of  Jena — and  it 
never  abandons  him.  It  is  a  kind  of  spiritual 
marriage.  In  1865,  when  the  sky  was  still  free 
from  clouds,  he  was  invited  to  take  a  position  at 
Wiirtzburg,  his  old  school-place.  He  declined  the 
invitation,  and  was  then  appointed  ordinary  pro- 
fessor at  Jena.  Then  the  evil  days  came.  The 
conclusions  of  his  Morpliologij  were  popularised  by 
himself,  and  went  out  far  and  wide  amongst  the 
masses.  People  opened  their  eyes  to  find  that  this 
audacious  scientist  was  making  "  war  upon  God  " 


254  HAECKEL 

out  of  his  zoology.  At  length  the  difficult  question 
arises  whether  a  mind  of  that  type  can  be  retained 
in  the  honourable  position  of  official  professor. 
The  Philistines  are  in  arms.  The  quiet,  stubborn 
group,  that  has  vegetated  unchanged,  like  a  de- 
moralised parasitic  animal,  from  Abdern  to  Schilda, 
through  thousands  of  years  of  the  free  development 
of  the  mind,  boycots  the  professor  and  his  family 
for  a  time.  The  Philistines  appeal  from  their 
safe  corner  to  the  authorities  to  intervene.  Once, 
towards  the  close  of  the  sixties,  the  situation 
threatened  to  become  really  critical.  The  head  of 
the  governing  body  of  the  university  at  the  time 
was  Seebeck,  a  distinguished  man  who  by  no 
means  shared  Haeckel's  views,  but  had  a  just 
feeling  of  Haeckel's  honourableness  and  mental 
power.  In  the  middle  of  the  struggle  Haeckel 
approaches  him  one  day,  and  says  that  he  is  pre- 
pared to  resign  his  position,  a  sacrifice  to  his 
ideas.  Seebeck  replied,  ^'My  dear  Haeckel,  you 
are  still  young,  and  you  will  come  yet  to  have  more 
mature  views  of  life.  After  all,  you  will  do  less 
harm  here  than  elsewhere,  so  you  had  better  stop 
here."  At  Jena  they  still  tell  a  similar  story  that 
happened  on  another  occasion.  A  stern  theologian 
presented  himself  in  person  at  the  chateau  of  Karl 
Alexander,  Grand  Duke  of  Weimar,  and  begged 
him  to  put  an  end  to  this  scandal  of  the  professor- 
ship of  Haeckel,  the  arch-heretic.  The  Grand 
Duke,  educated  in  the  Weimar  tradition  of  Goethe, 
asked,  "Do  you  think  he  really  believes  these 
things  that  he  publishes?"     '*  Most  certainly  he 


GROWTH    OF    IDEAS  255 

does,"  was  the  prompt  reply.  *^Very  good/'  said 
the  Grand  Duke,  ^^then  the  man  simply  does  the 
same  as  you  do." 

Haeckel  remained  a  professor  at  Jena;  and 
when  the  current  subsided  a  httle,  he  was  not 
insensible  of  their  liberality.  He  remained  faithful 
to  Jena,  though  even  Vienna,  amongst  other  places, 
offered  him  a  position  (1871).  Under  his  guidance 
^^ zoological"  Jena  flourished  like  a  poor  orphan 
that  has  suddenly  been  enriched.  At  one  stroke 
the  university  was  lifted  to  the  position  of  an 
intellectual  metropolis  for  the  whole  of  the  young 
scientific  generation  of  the  last  quarter  of  the 
century.  The  best  of  the  younger  men  that  fill 
the  biological  positions  in  Germany  to-day  (and 
many  others)  were  educated  under  Haeckel.  Many 
of  these  pupils  became  opponents  of  his  eventually, 
but  they  all  went  through  his  system.  He  had  a 
further  satisfaction.  He  not  only  attracted  the 
young  men  to  Jena,  but  he  conjured  up  as  if  by 
magic  the  financial  resources  for  improving  the 
external  advantages  of  the  place  for  teaching  and 
working.  His  style  of  "zoology,"  which  was  at 
the  same  time  ''natural  philosophy,"  brought 
people  to  his  assistance  who  would  never  have 
been  won  by  a  narrowly  technical  zoologist,  no 
matter  how  learned  he  was.  Twice  men  were 
induced  ''  for  his  sake  " — that  is  to  say,  induced 
by  the  magnetic  force  of  his  charming  personality— 
to  leave  large  legacies  to  be  spent  on  the  university 
under  his  direction;  once  it  was  the  Countess 
Bose,   another  time    Paul  von  Eitter  of  Basle. 


256  HAECKEL 

Eitter  alone  gave  sufficient  to  found  two  pro- 
fessorships at  Jena  for  the  express  purpose  of 
teaching  the  science  of  phylogeny  that  Haeckel 
had  created. 

All  through  the  period  of  his  long  stay  at  Jena 
that  followed  we  trace  a  series  of  continual  holiday 
journeys.  In  these  journeys  he  used  to  collect 
the  best  material  for  his  professional  research, 
following  the  method  he  had  learned  from  Miiller 
at  Heligoland,  and  had  practised  at  Messina  and 
Lanzarote.  At  the  same  time  these  travels  were, 
like  the  earlier  ones,  the  bath  of  eternal  youth  and 
health  for  ^*  the  other  soul  in  his  breast  " ;  the 
artist,  the  lusty  wanderer,  I  might  almost  say  the 
inveterate  Bohemian  in  him,  was  then  allowed  to 
have  his  spell  of  song  and  gaiety.  In  Jena  he 
took  deeper  and  deeper  root  as  time  went  on. 
There  was  something  in  him  in  this  respect  of  a 
Persephone  impulse,  an  alternation  of  winter  and 
summer  in  his  life.  When  the  days  of  hard  and 
wearing  work  were  past,  he  would  have  to  rush 
away  into  the  free  air,  down  to  the  blue  sea,  to  far 
and  happy  Nature.  *'  Here  I  am  a  man — dare  be  a 
man."  The  duty  of  the  zoologist  of  Miiller's 
school  to  go  down  to  the  sea  to  work  came  to  his 
rich  temperament,  which  included  so  much  more 
than  mere  ^'  professional  reasons,"  with  a  splendid 
sense  of  Persephone-life  :  half  his  time  in  the  cold 
North  studying  animal  skeletons  and  dead  bones 
by  the  burning  lamp,  the  other  half  in  the  glare  of 
the  sun  of  reality,  in  living  nature  at  its  best.  I 
will   only  quote  summarily  a  few  dates  of   these 


GROWTH    OF    IDEAS  257 

travels.  In  1869  he  spent  the  autumn  vacation 
in  Scandinavia.  In  1871  he  was  in  the  island  of 
Lesina  in  Dalmatia,  where  he,  the  arch-heretic, 
lived  in  a  monastery  with  a  jolly  abbot.  From 
beautiful  Kagusa  he  made  an  interesting  excursion 
to  Cattaro  and  Montenegro.  In  1873  he  went  to 
Egypt  and  Asia  Minor,  visiting  Athens,  Con- 
stantinople, Brussa,  and  the  Black  Sea.  The 
culmination  of  this  journey  w^as  a  visit  to  the 
splendid  coral  banks  of  Tur,  in  the  Red  Sea.  The 
Khedive,  Ismail  Pacha,  put  a  Government  steamer 
at  his  disposal  for  the  journey.  The  excursion  has 
been  superbly  described  by  Haeckel  himself  in  the 
little  volume.  The  Corals  of  Arabia  (1876).  The 
same  volume  contains  the  first  specimens  of  his 
landscapes  in  water-colour.  He  spent  the  spring 
of  1875  in  Corsica  and  Sardinia.  On  that  occasion 
Oscar  Hertwig  discovered,  in  his  presence,  the 
process  of  fertilisation  in  the  sea-urchin;  his 
discoveries  will  long  remain  a  turning-point  in 
the  history  of  our  knowledge  of  sexual  generation 
(one  of  the  deepest  mysteries  in  nature).  In  the 
autumn  of  1876  he  was  at  work  on  the  coast  of 
Great  Britain,  and  reached  as  far  as  Ireland.  In 
the  spring  of  1877  he  was  at  Ithaca  and  Corfu ; 
in  the  autumn  we  find  him  on  the  Riviera.  In 
1878  he  went  first  to  Fiume  and  Pola  on  the 
Adriatic,  and  afterwards  on  an  Atlantic  excursion 
to  Brittany,  Normandy,  and  Jersey.  In  the 
autumn  of  1879  he  was  in  Holland  and  Scotland. 
In  1881  he  made  the  second  longest  journey  of 
his  life.     He  secured  permission  to  absent  himself 

17 


258  HAECKEL 

from  the  university  for  six  months,  and  went  to 
Ceylon.  He  left  Jena  on  the  8th  of  October,  and 
did  not  return  until  April  21,  1882.  The  traveller 
and  aesthete  in  him  revelled  in  this  first  plunge 
into  the  tropics.  How  he  was  taken  to  the 
enchanted  land  of  India  in  the  Lloyd  steamer 
Helios  J  a  pretty  reminiscence  of  the  "  heliozoa  " 
(sun-plants),  a  name  he  had  himself  invented  ;  how 
he  greeted  his  beloved  medusae  in  their  beautiful 
tropical  forms  of  the  Indian  Ocean  ;  how  he  lived 
in  the  execrable  but  thoroughly  tropical  and  in- 
teresting Whist-Bungalow  at  Colombo,  where 
mysticism  and  an  unholy  joy  in  card-playing 
occupied  him  until  philosophic  zoology  came  to 
crown  and  redeem  everything ;  how  he  set  up  his 
zoological  laboratory  far  from  the  world  at  the 
Cingalese  village  of  Belligemma  (which  he  inter- 
preted hella  gemma^  the  *' pretty  jewel"),  and 
fished  with  his  Miiller  net  for  radiolaria,  medusae, 
and  siphonophorae,  for  six  whole  weeks,  to  the 
intense  bewilderment  of  the  naked  children  of  the 
palms  ;  how  he  at  last  penetrated  into  the  wildest 
virgin  forests  of  Ceylon,  where  one  heard  the  heavy 
tread  of  the  elephant  and  the  roar  of  the  panther 
— all  this  he  has  described  in  his  Visit  to  Ceylon^ 
the  freshest  expression  of  his  temperament,  which 
belongs  utterly  to  the  free,  artistic  half  of  his  life, 
when  Persephone  has  her  summer  days  in  the 
land  of  flowers. 

He  himself  regarded  this  journey,  happy  and 
favoured  to  the  very  last  minute,  as  a  crown  and 
conclusion  of  his  travels  that  could  never  be  sur- 


GROWTH    OF    IDEAS  259 

passed.  But  many  a  long  hour  was  to  be  spent  in 
travel  after  that,  and  he  was  to  make  one  journey 
that  left  Ceylon  far  behind  him  in  the  Indian 
Ocean.  In  the  spring  of  1887  he  made  a  pilgrim- 
age to  the  ^'  Holy  Land,"  Jerusalem  and  the  Dead 
Sea,  Damascus  and  Lebanon.  On  this  journey  he 
spent  a  delightful  month  on  the  island  of  Ehodos. 
In  1889  he  had  a  pleasant  time  on  the  beautiful 
island  of  Elba.  In  1890  he  visited  Algiers,  where 
his  innocent  sketches  and  his  anatomical  knife 
brought  suspicion  on  him ;  they  arrested  him  and 
threatened  to  shoot  him  as  a  spy.  He  has  described 
the  incident  in  his  genial  way  in  his  Algerian 
Beminisce?ices  which  is,  unfortunately,  lost  in  a 
back  number  of  some  magazine  or  other,  like  so 
many  of  the  sketches  of  his  travels.  In  1897  he 
travelled  over  the  whole  of  Russia,  from  Finland 
to  the  Caucasus,  and  visited  Tiflis,  Colchis,  and 
the  Crimea.  In  the  autumn  of  1892  he  accompanied 
Sir  John  Murray,  of  the  Challenger  expedition, 
on  a  small  deep-sea  investigation  on  the  coast  of 
Scotland.  In  the  spring  of  1893  and  1897  he  was 
at  work  once  more  in  his  beloved  Messina,  where 
he  was  now  honoured  as  a  world-famous  guest. 
In  the  autumn  of  1899  he  climbed  the  Sabine  and 
Corsican  hills.  As  the  second  decade  after  his 
first  journey  to  the  tropics  came  to  an  end,  he 
seemed  to  regard  all  he  had  done  so  far  as  a  small 
payment  on  account.  In  his  sixty-sixth  year  he 
felt  the  "  home-sickness  "  for  the  tropics  once  more 
with  such  intensity  that  he  quickly  made  up  his 
mind  to  go  as  far  as  the  equator.     He  left  Jena  on 


260  HAECKEL 

August  21,  1900,  and  (after  a  brief  visit  to  the 
exhibition  at  Paris)  took  ship  at  Genoa,  on 
September  4th,  for  Singapore.  His  beloved  Italy 
had  provided  part  of  the  cost  of  the  journey.  In 
the  previous  year  the  Eoyal  Academy  of  Science  at 
Turin  had  awarded  him  the  Bressa-prize  (consisting 
of  10,000  lire)  on  account  of  his  Systematic 
Fliylogeny.  Once  more  the  tropics  revived  the 
great  impression  made  on  him  in  his  earlier  visit. 
This  time  he  spent  only  a  few  hours  in  Ceylon, 
and  sailed  further  south.  He  landed  at  Singapore 
on  September  27th,  and  sixteen  days  afterwards 
w^ent  on  to  Java,  and  thus  crossed  the  equator  at 
last.  He  enjoyed  to  the  full  the  charms  of  the 
landscape  with  its  volcanoes  and  virgin  forests, 
during  his  stay  with  Treub  at  Buitenzorg,  at 
Tjibodas,  and  during  his  long  journey  across  the 
greater  part  of  the  island.  At  Tjibodas  he  cele- 
brated the  close  of  the  nineteenth  century  [German 
calculation]  by  painting  a  fine  water-colour  of  the 
smoke-canopy  over  the  summit  of  the  volcano 
Gedeh,  touched  and  gilded  by  the  east  rays  of  the 
sun  on  the  last  day  of  1900.  On  January  23,  1901, 
he  went  from  Batavia  to  Sumatra,  crossed  the 
Sunda  Strait  in  sight  of  the  famous  volcanic  ruins 
of  Krakatoa,  and  spent  six  weeks  in  Padang  on 
the  south-west  coast  of  Sumatra.  This  delay  was 
largely  involuntary,  and  due  to  an  injury  to  his  knee, 
caused  by  stumbling  over  a  rail  during  a  visit  to 
an  engineering  establishment ;  but  the  time  was 
by  no  means  lost  in  the  middle  of  such  glories. 
On  March  31st  he  landed  in  Europe  (at  Naples) 


GROWTH    OF    IDEAS  261 

once  more,  after  a  safe  voyage.  The  notes  he  made 

during  his  journey  yielded  another  charming  work, 

Letters  from  the  East  Indies  and  Malaysia  (1901). 

His  spirit  of  enterprise  is  inexhaustible,  and  still 

continues. 

.  •  •  •  • 

Within  this  frame  of  his  career  we  have  now 
to  study  a  growth  of  ideas  and  a  continuance  of 
research  that  tell  of  vigour,  consistency,  and 
success  in  every  line.  It  unfolds  logically  like  a 
great  work  of  art. 

The  General  Morphology  stands  at  the  parting 
of  two  ways.  It  afforded  a  programme  of  an 
infinite  amount  of  fresh  technical  research — the 
elaboration  of  his  studies  in  detail,  of  promor- 
phology,  of  his  theory  of  individuality,  and  of  the 
phylogenetic  system  of  living  things  ;  and  the 
strengthening  of  the  laws  of  evolution,  especially 
the  great  biogenetic  law.  On  the  other  hand,  there 
was  the  purely  philosophic  work  to  be  done  :  the 
gathering  together  of  the  general  threads  that 
ran  through  his  work,  and  the  building  of  a  new 
philosophy  of  life,  based  on  a  new  story  of  creation, 
from  the  atom  to  the  moneron,  from  the  moneron 
to  man,  and  the  whole  to  be  comprised  and 
contained  in  God.  In  a  word,  he  might  proceed 
in  either  of  two  ways  from  the  Morphology :  he 
might  construct  academic  zoology  afresh,  or  he 
might  write  a  work  on  the  new  God. 

When  he  came  home  from  Lanzarote,  the  two 
ways  seemed  to  coincide  in  front  of  him  ;  his  work 
had,  indeed,  opened  them  out  as  one.   But  external 


262  HAECKEL 

circumstances  intervened.  As  things  are,  it  was 
only  his  academic  colleagues  that  had  any  right  to 
the  new  biology.  A  new  book  on  God  and  creation 
would  go  out  to  *'the  publicans  and  sinners." 
Interest  must  be  lit  up  amongst  the  people  at  large, 
where  there  was  as  yet  only  the  faintest  spark.  It 
appeared,  moreover,  that  most  of  his  academic 
colleagues  in  1867  had  no  wish  to  enter  on  the  new 
path  he  had  opened  out.  A  new  generation  would 
have  to  grow  up  first.  The  MorpliologTj^  from 
which  Haeckel  on  his  travels  had  expected  at  least 
a  revolution,  met  at  first  with  an  icy  silence.  There 
was  hardly  any  discussion  of  it,  and  no  excitement 
whatever.  Haeckel  quickly  made  up  his  mind. 
He  must  turn  in  the  other  direction.  G-egenbaur 
consoles  him.  He  has  given  too  much — twenty 
dishes  instead  of  one.  He  must  serve  up  the  best 
part  of  the  work  on  one  dish,  and  it  will  be  taken. 
Haeckel  agrees  with  him  to  some  extent,  but  his 
heavy  technical  artillery  cannot  be  simplified  so 
easily  as  that.  The  only  possible  thing  to  do  is  to 
give  an  extract  of  it,  which  will  make  the  broad 
lines  of  the  system  clear.  But  as  soon  as  that  is 
done,  he  sees  that  the  extract  is  still  only  the 
general  philosophical  part  of  it,  and  will  not  appeal 
to  the  general  public. 

It  was  such  reflections  as  these  that  led  to  the 
writing  of  his  History  of  Creation^  a  popular 
work.* 

The  chapters  of  this  work  were  first  delivered 

"^^  Translated  into  English  with  the  above  title.  Literally,  the 
title  is  :  The  Story  of  Natural  Creation. 


GROWTH    OF    IDEAS  263 

orally  to  students,  in  the  form  of  lectures,  and 
formed  a  kind  of  introduction  to  morphology.  The 
lectures,  retaining  their  lighter  form,  were  then 
combined  to  make  the  book.  It  was  published  in 
1868,  a  small  volume  in  a  very  primitive  garb. 
The  success  of  the  work  was  unprecedented. 

Zoology  and  botany  were  treated  philosophically 
in  the  Morphology.     That  did  not  suit   the  pro- 
fessional scientists,  who  (as  I  said)  crossed  them- 
selves when  they  saw  ''  natural  philosophy."     In 
the   Histojy  of  Creation   the   great   problems   of 
philosophy  are   dealt  with   successively   on  Dar- 
winian  lines,   from   the  zoological   and  botanical 
point  of  view.     It  was  like  the  sinking  of  a  deep 
well  amongst  general  thoughtful  readers.     People 
felt  at  last  what  a  power  science  had  become.     The 
old  riddles  of  life  were  studied  in  a  new  light  with 
the  aid  of  this  book.     There  was  no  predecessor  in 
this  field.     Haeckel   was   absolutely   the  first   to 
appeal  to  the  general  reader   in  this   way.     It  is 
true  that  what  he  gave  them  was,  strictly  speaking, 
only  an   extract  from  his  own  MoiyJwlogjj,   espe- 
cially the  second  volume.   But  as  he  now  arranged 
his  matter  chronologically,  he  converted  his  outline 
of  a  world-system  into  a  *^  world-history  " — a  real 
*' history  of  natural  creation."     In  the  "Pictures 
of    Nature "   in   the   first   volume  of  his    Cosmos 
Humboldt  had  tried  to  bring   the   natural   world 
before  his  readers  as  a  great  panorama,  to  be  taken 
in  at  one  glance.     But   he   strictly   confined  his 
study  of  nature  to  the  things  that  actually  exist ; 
how  they  came  to  exist  was   not,   he   intimated, 


264  HAECKEL 

a  subject  of  scientific  inquiry.  Haeckel  proceeds 
to  this  further  task.  His  panorama  of  nature  does 
not  stand  out  rigidly  before  us  ;  it  develops,  under 
the  eyes  of  the  observer,  from  the  formless  nebula 
to  the  intelligent  human  being.  Even  on  the 
surface  this  was  seen  to  be  a  prodigious  advance. 
Very  plain,  but  very  attractive,  it  makes  its  way 
by  the  force  of  its  convincing  dialectic,  and  places 
no  reliance  on  the  fireworks  of  rhetoric.  The 
subtle  power  of  it  lies  in  the  arrangement  of  the 
facts,  which  suddenly  assume  the  form  of  a  logical 
chain  instead  of  being  a  shapeless  chaos.  Even  if 
all  the  main  ideas  of  the  work  were  false,  we  should 
be  compelled  to  regard  it  as  one  of  the  cleverest 
works  that  was  ever  written,  from  the  dialectical 
point  of  view.  But  the  essence  of  this  cleverness 
is  the  way  in  which  the  grouping  of  the  facts  is 
made  to  yield  the  philosophic  evolution,  which  is 
the  thoughtful  basis  of  the  work.  As  the  world 
proceeds  in  its  natural  development  from  the 
nebular  cosmic  raw-material  until  it  culminates  in 
the  ape  and  man,  the  reader  finds  himself  at  the 
same  time  advancing  along  a  series  of  general 
philosophic  conclusions  with  regard  to  God,  the 
world,  and  man.  If  at  the  end  he  has  retained  the 
whole  series  of  what  are  to  him  more  or  less  new 
scientific  details,  he  is  bound  to  find  himself  caught 
in  a  strong  net  of  philosophic  conclusions. 

In  view  of  all  this  we  can  easily  understand  the 
different  reception  that  the  book  met  with  from 
friend  and  foe.  People  who  had  already  assented  to 
the  main  issues  of  the  work  on  general  grounds  of 


GROWTH    OF    IDEAS  265 

probability,  were  delighted  to  find  these  issues 
decisively  established  by  the  plain  facts  of  science. 
On  the  other  hand,  those  who  would  have  none  of 
Haeckel's  philosophy  now  felt  compelled,  in  view 
of  this  dreadful  work,  to  call  these  alleged  facts  of 
science  themselves  into  question.  In  face  of  this 
hostility  it  was  some  disadvantage  that  the  History 
of  Creation  contained  a  vast  amount  of  technical 
material  (such  as  the  genealogical  trees,  the  Dar- 
winian laws,  the  explanation  of  the  facts  of  embry- 
ology, &c.)  that  could  only  be  presented  summarily 
in  it,  while  the  proper  technical  description  and 
justification  of  them  was  buried  in  the  thick 
volumes  of  the  Morphology,  Haeckel  said,  over 
and  over  again,  that  a  certain  thing  had  been  so 
fully  established  by  him  scientifically  in  the  other 
work  that  he  was  now  at  liberty  to  take  it  as  a 
fact ;  and  he  accordingly  built  it  up  as  such  with- 
out prejudice  into  the  compact  structure  of  the 
popular  work.  Eeaders  who  wanted  to  go  further 
into  the  discussion  of  these  facts  had  to  look  up  the 
relevant  passages  in  the  larger  book.  But  the 
great  bulk  of  his  opponents — amongst  whom  we 
must  count  even  many  professional  scientists — had 
never  read  the  two  volumes  of  the  Morphology. 
They  merely  took  the  brief  statement  in  the  History 
of  Creation^  which  was  really  little  more  than  a 
reference,  and  made  a  violent  attack  on  the  ^'  fact " 
it  was  said  to  convey.  ' 

This  led  to  a  great  deal  of  confusion.  As  in  this 
case  a  controversy  over  some  petty  zoological 
detail  was  always  a  ''  struggle  about  God,"  and  so 


266  HAECKEL 

agitated  the  opponent  down  to  the  most  secret  folds 
of  his  philosophy,  the  usual  consequences  did  not 
fail  to  put  in  an  appearance.  Haeckel  was  branded 
and  calumniated  personally.  There  has  never 
been  any  apostle  in  the  world  that  some  sect  or 
other  has  not  decried  as  a  rogue  and  evil-doer, 
simply  because  he  was  an  apostle.  Wherever 
Haeckel  has  made  use  of  any  material  that  did 
not  seem  to  be  absolutely  sound  in  every  respect, 
he  was  not  simply  accused  of  making  a  mistake, 
not  even  of  ignorance,  but  the  whole  thing  has 
been  put  down  at  once  to  dishonesty  and  the 
worst  type  of  bad  faith. 

One  should  bear  in  mind  how  very  generally 
pioneer  work  of  this  kind  is  liable  to  err.  Further, 
in  the  History  of  Creation  there  is  the  danger 
involved  in  the  popular  presentation  of  the  results 
of  scientific  research.  Any  man  who  has  written 
popular  works,  or  delivered  lectures  to  the  general 
public,  knows  what  this  means.  There  is  little 
common  measure  between  them.  The  truths  of 
science  are  in  a  state  of  constant  flux ;  it  is  of  their 
essence  to  be  so.  To  fish  out  a  piece  from  this 
stream,  fix  it,  and  magnify  it  for  the  public  with  a 
broad  beam  of  light,  really  amounts  in  principle  to 
an  alteration  of  it ;  it  is  putting  a  certain  pressure 
on  things,  and  giving  them  an  arbitrary  shape. 
The  work  of  popularising  truths  is  so  holy  a  thing 
in  its  aim  that  this  risk  has  to  be  run.  We  must 
take  things  as  they  are.  We  have  two  alternatives : 
either  not  to  popularise  at  all,  or  to  take  the 
apparatus  with  all  its  defects.     We  can  diminish 


GROWTH    OF    IDEAS  267 

these  according  to  our  skill ;  but  there  is  a  sub- 
jective limit  to  this  skill  in  all  of  us. 

The  first  edition  of  the  History  of  Creation — 
Haeckel's  first  attempt  at  popularising — had  a  good 
deal  of  inequality  in  this  respect.  To  begin  with, 
the  book  had  the  air  of  an  extempore  deliverance. 
Its  success  was  very  largely  due  to  its  being  cast  in 
this  form.  But  there  was  a  good  deal  that  could 
be  improved  here  and  there,  and  was  improved  in 
the  later  editions  of  the  work.  In  the  tenth 
edition,  as  we  now  have  it,  it  is  a  splendid  work  in 
regard  to  the  illustrations,  for  instance.  But  the 
first  edition  was  merely  provided  with  a  few  very 
crude  woodcuts  in  outline.  Some  of  them  were 
very  clumsy.  In  comparing  diSerent  embryological 
objects  the  same  blocks  were  used  sometimes, 
and  this  would  give  rise  to  misunderstanding  in 
the  mind  of  the  reader.  For  instance,  there  was 
question  of  demonstrating  that  certain  objects, 
such  as  the  human  ovum  and  the  ovum  of  some 
of  the  related  higher  mammals,  were  just  the  same 
in  their  external  outlines.  This  fact  is  quite  correct 
and  established  to-day.  If  I  draw  the  outline,  and 
write  underneath  it  that  as  a  type  it  is  applicable 
to  all  known  ova  of  the  higher  mammals,  including 
man,  there  is  no  possibility  of  misunderstanding. 
But  if  I  print  the  same  illustration  three  times 
with  the  suggestion  that  they  are  three  different 
mammal-ova,  the  general  reader  is  easily  apt  to 
think,  not  only  that  they  are  identical  in  the 
general  scheme  of  this  outline,  but  also  in  internal 
structure.     He  imagines  that  the  ova  of  man  and 


268  HAECKEL 

the  ape  are  just  the  same  even  in  their  microscopic 
and  chemical  features.  This  leads  to  a  contra- 
diction between  the  illustration  and  what  Haeckel 
expressly  says  in  the  text.  We  read  that  there  is 
indeed  an  external  resemblance  in  shape  between 
these  ova,  but  that  there  is  bound  to  be  a  great 
diference  in  internal  structure,  since  an  ape  is 
developed  from  the  one  and  a  human  being 
developed  from  the  other.  It  would  have  been 
better  Mf  the  general  reader,  who  is  not  familiar 
with  these  outline  pictures,  had  been  more  em- 
phatically informed  in  the  text  below  the  illustration 
that  even  the  outline  is  to  be  taken  as  a  general 
and  ideal  scheme.  In  this  sense  we  must  certainly 
admit  that  the  illustration  was  bad,  since  it  would 
lead  to  a  misunderstanding  of  the  clear  words  of 
the  text.  But  what  are  we  to  say  when  the  oppo- 
nents of  Haeckel's  views  viciously  raise  the  cry  of 
'^  bad  faith  "  on  the  ground  of  a  few  little  slips 
like  this,  and  suggest  that  he  deliberately  tried  to 
mislead  his  readers  with  false  illustrations? 
Amongst  the  general  public,  in  so  far  as  it  was 
hostile  to  Haeckel,  the  charge  blossomed  out  into 
the  most  curious  forms.  Some  declared  that  the 
whole  story  of  a  resemblance  between  man's  ovum 
and  embryo  and  those  of  other  animals  was  an 
invention  of  Professor  Haeckel's  ;  others — we  even 
read  it  now  and  again  in  our  own  time — went  so 
far  as  to  say  that  the  human  ovum  and  embryonic 
forms  only  existed  in  Haeckel's  imagination.  All 
these  wild  charges  are  of  no  avail.  The  human 
ovum,  which  corresponds   entirely  in   its   general 


GROWTH    OF    IDEAS  269 

scheme  to  that  of  the  other  higher  mammals,  was 
not  discovered  in  1868  by  the  wicked  Haeckel,  but 
in  1827  by  the  great  master  of  embryological 
research,  Carl  Ernst  von  Baer.  The  considerable 
external  resemblance,  at  certain  stages  of  develop- 
ment, between  the  embryos  of  reptiles,  birds,  and 
mammals,  including  man,  was  decisively  established 
by  the  same  great  scientist.  These  really  remark- 
able stages  in  the  development  of  the  human 
embryo,  during  which,  in  accordance  with  the 
biogenetic  law,  it  shows  clear  traces  of  the  gill-slits 
of  its  fish-ancestors,  and  has  a  corresponding  fin- 
like structure  of  the  four  limbs  and  a  very  con- 
siderable tail,  can  be  seen  by  the  general  reader  at 
any  time  in  the  illustrated  works  of  His,  Ecker,  and 
Kolliker  (Haeckel' s  chief  opponents)  or  in  any 
illustrated  manual  of  embryology,  and  their  full 
force  as  evolutionary  evidence  can  be  appreciated. 
Any  man  that  constructs  his  philosophy  in  such  a 
w^ay  that,  in  his  conviction,  it  stands  or  falls  with 
the  existence  of  these  embryonic  phenomena,  is  in 
a  very  delicate  position,  apart  altogether  from 
Haeckel.  His  philosophy  will  collapse,  even  if  the 
History  of  Creatio?i  had  never  been  written. 

These  curious  discussions  did  not  seriously  inter- 
fere with  the  success  of  the  book.  In  thousands 
and  thousands  of  minds,  in  1868,  this  little  work 
proved  the  grain  of  seed  that  led  on  in  time  to 
serious  thought.  From  that  time  onward  Haeckel 
knew  that  he  had  not  only  scientific  colleagues  and 
academic  pupils,  but  a  crowd  of  followers.  When 
he  made  an  excursion  into  the  northern  part  of  the 


270  HAECKEL 

Sahara,  as  far  as  the  first  oasis,  twenty-two  years 
afterwards,  he  met  an  artist  there.  They  talked 
philosophy,  and  the  man,  not  knowing  Haeckel, 
naively  recommended  him  to  study  the  History  of 
Creation  as  likely  to  give  him  most  help.  The 
little  incident  shows  us  something  of  the  great 
pioneer  work  done  by  the  volume,  something  of  its 
spiritual  circumnavigation  of  the  globe. 

•  •  •  • 

Thus  the  spiritual  nucleus  of  the  General 
Morphology  is  introduced,  with  great  ability,  to  a 
much  wider  circle  than  Haeckel  had  dreamed  of 
when  he  gave  the  Morphology  to  his  colleagues. 
But  the  agitation  gradually  spread  into  academic 
circles.  On  the  whole  the  Darwinian  ideas  pressed 
in  everywhere  by  their  own  irresistible  weight. 
Haeckel's  more  particular  concern,  however,  was 
to  secure  the  recognition  of  one  single  point  in  the 
larger  group  of  ideas — the  great  biogenetic  law. 
This  was  for  many  years  the  pivot  on  which  almost 
all  the  discussions  with  him  and  about  him  turned. 

He  himself  did  not  at  first  conceive  his  law  as 
a  matter  of  controversy,  but  as  a  method  that 
must  be  brought  into  a  position  of  practical  utility. 
An  opportunity  to  do  this  arose  immediately. 

While  he  was  at  Lanzarote  he  began  to  take  an 
interest  in  a  second  group  of  lowly  animals  besides 
the  siphonophores,  namely  the  sponges.  When 
the  general  reader  hears  the  word  ^*  sponge  "  he 
must  modify  his  ordinary  ideas  a  little.  In  the 
present  instance  he  must  not  think  of  the  plants, 
belonging  to  the  fungi-group,  such  as  the  morel 


GROWTH    OF    IDEAS  271 

and  cognate  forms,  that  are  often  called  '*  sponges  " 
in  common  parlance.  He  must  think  rather 
of  the  sponge  he  uses  in  his  bath.  The  bath- 
sponge  is  a  structure  made  up  of  very  tough, 
elastic,  horny  fibres.  This  structure  is  originally 
the  skeleton,  as  it  were,  of  certain  animals  that 
are  known  as  '' sponge-animals "  or,  briefly, 
sponges ;  they  have  nothing  to  do  with  the  spongy 
mushrooms  I  spoke  of.  At  the  same  time  these 
socially-living  sponges  are  such  curious  creatures 
that  it  was  disputed  for  a  long  time  whether  they 
were  real  animals  or  not.  There  was  a  second 
controversy  in  regard  to  them  as  to  where  the 
^'  individual  "  began — what  was  a  single  animal, 
and  what  a  co-operative  colony  of  animals.  The 
latter  point  alone  would  have  been  enough  to 
direct  Haeckel's  attention  to  this  group  after  he 
had,  in  the  case  of  the  siphonophores,  gone  so 
deeply  into  the  mystery  of  combined  individuals, 
forming  a  new  "state-individual."  His  own 
opinion  eventually  was  that  as  a  matter  of  fact  in 
the  majority  of  cases  the  whole  sponge  is  a  stock 
or  colony  of  separate  sponge  individuals  closely 
connected  together.  They  had  not,  indeed,  any- 
thing like  the  ingenious  method  of  division  of 
labour  that  we  find  in  the  social  medusae ;  in 
fact,  the  sponges  are  in  all  respects  much  more 
lowly  organised  animals  than  the  medusae.  But 
they  were  certainly  true  animals.  And  in  the 
middle  of  his  efforts  to  prove  this  Haeckel  tra- 
velled into  an  entirely  new  field  of  research,  lying 
far  beyond  the  theory  of  individuality. 


272  HAECKEL 

As  there  is  an  enormous  number  of  different 
sponges,  he  had  confined  his  studies  from  the 
first  to  a  single  group  of  them  that  might  be 
taken  as  typical.  He  chose  the  calcispongiae  (cal- 
careous sponges),  which  had  been  the  least  studied 
up  to  that  time.  As  the  name  obviously  implies, 
these  sponges  form  their  internal  framework  or 
skeleton,  not  of  elastic  horny  fibres  like  the 
common  bath-sponge,  but  of  solid  calcareous 
needles  or  spines.  They  secrete  these  out  of  the 
soft  substance  of  their  bodies  just  as  the  radio- 
laria  do  their  pretty  siliceous  houses.  Haeckel 
was  engaged  for  five  years,  from  1867  to  1872,  in 
a  profound  and  careful  study  of  the  natural  his- 
tory of  the  calcispongiae.  Then  he  published  the 
results  in  his  Monograph  on  the  Galcispongice, 
consisting  of  two  volumes  of  text  and  an  atlas  of 
sixty  fine  plates. 

The  first  result  was  that  the  calcispongiae 
afforded  a  splendid  proof  of  the  impossibility  of 
drawing  sharp  limits  between  species  in  the  per- 
petually developing  animal  world.  In  their  case 
the  different  varieties  passed  constantly  out  of 
each  other  and  back  into  each  other  in  a  way 
that  would  have  made  a  classifier  of  the  old  type 
distracted.  But  Haeckel  had  travelled  far  beyond 
the  position  of  his  boyhood,  when  he  had  timor- 
ously concealed  the  bad  species  that  would  not 
fit  into  the  system.  He  said  humorously  that  in 
the  case  of  the  calcispongiae  you  had  the  choice 
of  distinguishing  one  genus  with  three  species,  or 
three  genera  with  239  species,  or  113  genera  with 


Ernst  Haeckel,  1874. 


To  face  p.  272. 


GROWTH    OF    IDEAS  273 

591  species.  All  this  confusion  was  saved  by  the 
Darwinian  idea  of  not  setting  up  absolutely  rigid 
classes,  families,  genera,  and  species.  But  even 
this  was  not  yet  the  essential  point. 

As  he  had  done  in  the  case  of  the  siphonophores, 
Haeckel  endeavoured  to  derive  as  much  informa- 
tion as  possible  from  the  "ontogeny,"  or  embryonic 
development,  of  the  calcispongiae.  He  established 
in  some  cases,  it  seemed  to  him,  that  a  single 
calcisponge-individual  at  first  and  up  to  a  certain 
stage  developed  from  the  ovum  in  the  same  way 
as  a  medusa  or  a  coral  or  an  anemone.  The  fer- 
tilised ovum,  a  single  cell,  divided  into  two  cells, 
then  several,  and  at  last  formed  a  whole  cluster  of 
cells.  In  this  cluster  the  cells  arranged  themselves 
at  the  surface,  and  left  a  hollow  cavity  within. 
Then  two  layers  of  cells  were  formed,  like  a  double 
skin,  in  the  wall  of  this  vesicle,  and  an  opening 
was  left  at  one  spot  in  the  wall  of  it.  Thus  we 
got  a  free-swimming  embryo,  with  a  mouth,  an 
external  skin,  and  an  internal  digestive  skin  or 
membrane.  Then  the  creature  attaches  itself  to 
the  floor  of  the  sea  and  becomes  a  real  sponge, 
partly  by  developing  along  its  characteristic  lines, 
and  partly  (in  most  cases)  by  producing  other 
sponges  from  itself  in  the  form  of  buds,  like  the 
siphonophore,  and  so  forming  an  elaborate  colony, 
to  which  we  give  collectively  the  title  of  "a 
sponge."  These  facts  led  to  the  following  re- 
flections. 

This  original  development  from  the  ovum,  first 
into  an  embryo  with  the  form  of  a  small  globe  or, 

18 


274  HAECKEL 

more  correctly,  an  oval  body  consisting  of  two 
layers  of  cells  and  having  a  hole  at  one  pole — in 
other  words,  a  creature  with  nothing  but  skin, 
stomach,  and  mouth — was  found,  curiously  enough, 
in  other  animals  besides  the  medusae,  corals,  and 
sponges.  We  have  the  same  course  of  develop- 
ment in  representatives  of  the  most  varied  groups 
of  animals.  There  are  worms,  star-fishes,  crabs, 
and  snails  that  develop  in  the  same  way.  In  fact, 
it  was  proved  in  this  very  year  (1867)  that  the  lowest 
of  the  vertebrates,  the  amphioxus  (or  lancelet), 
develops  in  the  same  way.  And  this  was  not  all. 
In  the  ontogeny  of  all  the  higher  animals  right 
up  to  man  (inclusive)  we  find  a  state  of  things 
that  most  closely  resembles  the  same  development. 
At  all  events,  the  fertilised  ovum  gives  rise  in  all 
cases  to  a  cluster  of  cells ;  this  cluster  forms 
something  like  a  flattened  or  elongated  vesicle 
with  a  single-layered  wall ;  the  single  layer  of  cells 
is  doubled,  and  in  the  building  up  of  the  body  one 
half  makes  the  external  coat  or  skin  and  the  other 
half  the  internal  lining  or  membrane.  Haeckel 
reflected  on  the  whole  of  the  facts,  and  drew 
his  conclusions.  This  very  curious  agreement 
in  the  earlier  embryonic  forms  must  be  interpreted 
in  terms  of  the  biogenetic  law.  In  the  case  of 
the  higher  animals  the  forms  have  been  profoundly 
modified  by  cenogenesis.  In  the  lower  animals 
they  are  almost  or  altogether  a  pure  recapitulation 
of  the  real  primitive  course  of  the  development 
of  the  animal  kingdom.  In  the  earliest  times 
animals  were  evolved  in  something  like  the  follow- 


GROWTH    OF    IDEAS  275 

ing  way.  First,  the  primitive  unicellular  protozoa 
came  together  and  formed  crude  social  bodies, 
clusters  of  cells  that  kept  together,  but  had  no 
special  division  of  labour.  As  all  the  members  in 
the  cluster  pressed  to  the  surface,  in  order  to 
obtain  their  food,  they  came  to  form,  not  a  solid 
mass  of  cells,  but  a  hollow  vesicle  with  a  wall 
of  cells.  Then  the  first  division  of  labour  set  in. 
Certain  cells,  those  that  were  situated  at  the 
anterior  pole,  and  so  were  better  placed  to  receive 
the  floating  food  as  the  animal  moved  along, 
became  the  eating-cells  of  the  group ;  they  pro- 
vided nourishment  for  the  others,  as  the  nutritious 
sap  circulated  through  all  the  cells  in  the  cluster, 
as  we  find  in  the  case  of  the  siphonophores.  As 
these  feeding-cells  multiplied  rapidly  at  the  fore 
part  of  the  animal,  a  depression  was  formed  at  that 
pole  of  the  body.  In  the  end  the  ball  or  vesicle 
was  doubled  in  upon  itself,  until  it  came  to  have 
the  form  of  a  cup  with  a  double-layered  wall. 
Externally  were  the  cells  in  the  skin  that  effected 
movement  and  feeling,  and  aSorded  protection ; 
inside,  forming  the  internal  wall,  were  the  eating- 
or  stomach-cells.  An  opening  remained  at  the 
top — the  opening  of  the  cup  or  vase-like  body. 
The  food  entered  by  it :  it  was  virtually  the 
*' mouth."  Thus  was  formed  a  primitive  multi- 
cellular animal  with  division  of  labour.  If  we 
imagine  it  attaching  itself  to  the  bottom  by  its 
lower  pole,  we  can  see  that  it  would  easily  become 
a  sponge  of  the  simplest  kind,  a  polyp,  a  coral,  or, 
detaching    itself  once  more,   a    medusa.     If    we 


276  HAECKEL 

imagine  it  swimming  ahead  in  the  water  or 
creeping  along  the  ground  in  such  a  way  as  to 
assume  a  bilateral  symmetrical  structure,  like  a 
tube,  with  right  and  left,  back  and  belly,  and 
an  anus  behind,  we  have  a  worm.  This  worm 
developed,  under  the  action  of  the  Darwinian 
laws,  into  a  star-fish  in  one  case,  a  crab  or  insect 
in  another,  a  snail  or  mussel  in  another,  and 
lastly  into  the  amphioxus,  which  led  on  through 
the  vertebrates  to  the  human  frame.  But  the 
mysterious  series  of  forms  always  remained  in 
the  development  of  the  individual  from  the  eggy 
pointing  more  or  less  clearly  to  the  earlier  stages  : 
ovum,  cluster  of  cells,  ball,  two  cell-layers  in  a 
cup-shaped  form,  skin,  stomach,  and  mouth.  All 
animals  that  exhibit  this  primitive  scheme  belong 
to  one  great  stem.  It  was  not  until  this  skin- 
stomach-mouth  animal  was  formed  that  the  tree 
branched  out — evolving  into  sessile,  creeping, 
swimming,  and  other  forms.  Let  us  give  a  name 
to  this  phylogenetic  (ancestral)  form,  which  stands 
at  the  great  parting  of  the  ways  in  the  animal 
world,  as  embryology  proves.  Leaving  aside  its 
innumerable  relatives  in  the  primitive  days,  it 
must  have  differed  essentially  from  all  other  living 
things  at  the  time — all  the  protists  and  the  plants 
— by  its  possession  of  a  skin,  stomach,  and  mouth. 
Gaster  is  the  Greek  for  stomach.  Let  us,  there- 
fore, call  this  primitive  parent  of  all  the  sponges 
polyps,  medusa,  worms,  Crustacea,  insects,  snails, 
mussels,  cephalopods,  fishes,  salamanders,  lizards, 
birds,  mammals,  and  man,  the  gastrcea^  the  primi- 


GROWTH    OF    IDEAS  277 

tive-stomach   or   primitive-gut   animal.     The  cor- 
responding embryonic  form  may  be  distinguished 
from   it   as   the    gastrula.     There   are  still  many 
living    species    of    animals    that    are    very  little 
higher  in    organisation    than    the    gastrsea-form. 
The    Peinmatodiscus    gastrulaceus,    discovered   by 
Monticelli    in   1895,    corresponds    entirely  to    it. 
And  the  gastrula  is  found,  as  I  said,  with  astonish- 
ing    regularity    in    its    precise    gastraea-form    in 
representatives  of  all  the  higher  groups  of  animals. 
That    is   an    outline    of    the   famous   gastrasa- 
theory,   that    Haeckel    discovered   when    he  was 
engaged    in    studying   the   calcisponges.     It   was 
first  published  in  his  large  Monograph  on  the  Cal- 
cispongicB  in   1872,  elaborated  in   his   Studies   of 
the    GastrcecL'theorg    in     1873,    1875,    and    1876 
(published  in  one  volume  in  1877),  and  generally 
expounded,   together  with  the  biogenetic  law,  in 
(amongst  other  works)  his  polemical  essay,  ^'  The 
aims  and  methods  of  modern  embryology  "  (1875). 
This  discovery,  in  Haeckel' s  opinion,   now   made 
the    biogenetic    law    a    real    search-light    in   the 
exploration  of  the  obscure  past.     It   indicated   a 
third  critical  point  in  the  great  genealogical  tree. 
Already   we  had  the  root  (the  monera)  and   the 
crown  (man) ;  now  we  had  the  point  from  which 
the  various   real   animal  stems  radiated  like  the 
umbellate    branches    of     a     single    large    bloom. 
Through    it    the    Darwinian     system     had    been 
converted    into   the   greatest   practical   reform   of 
animal    classification.        If    this     gastraea-theory 
was    correct,    it    was    an    incalculable    gain    for 


278  HAECKEL 

zoology.  The  difficulty  of  it,  on  the  other  hand, 
lay  in  the  infinite  modifications  of  the  embryonic 
processes  in  detail  that  had  been  brought  about 
by  cenogenesis ;  almost  everywhere  this  had  more 
or  less  obscured  the  original  features.  On  the 
whole  it  gave  rise  to  the  greatest  and  most 
far-reaching  discussion  that  has  taken  place  in 
zoology  for  the  last  thirty  years,  apart  from  the 
Darwinian  theory  itself.  To-day,  at  the  close 
of  these  three  decades,  there  are  only  two  alterna- 
tives. One  is  that  there  is  still  an  absolutely 
mysterious  and  hidden  law  of  ontogeny,  that 
compels  countless  animals  over  and  over  again 
to  pass  through  these  embryonic  forms  and 
assume  a  likeness  to  the  gastraea.  After  all  the 
eagerness  with  which  the  whole  school  of  embryo- 
logists  opposed  to  Haeckel  have  sought,  up  to 
our  own  day,  to  establish  such  a  direct  law,  we 
have  not  yet  got  the  shadow  of  a  clear  formulation 
of  it.  The  other  alternative  is  that  Haeckel  is 
right  in  believing  that  he  has  discovered  the 
correct  formula  in  his  phylogenetic  interpretation 
of  embryonic  processes  in  accordance  with  the 
biogenetic  law.  If  that  is  so,  the  gastraea-theory 
is  the  crown  of  all  his  labours  in  technical  zoology 
proper.     Let  us  wait  another  thirty  years. 

The  scientific  controversy  over  the  gastrasa- 
theory  was  in  full  swing  when  Haeckel  entered 
upon  another  bold  experiment  in  the  direction 
of  the  biogenetic  law.  He  thought  it  would  be 
useful,  instead  of  framing  wider  hypotheses,  to 
take   one   single  instance   of  one   of  the  highest 


GROWTH    OF    IDEAS  279 

animals,  and  trace  the  whole  parallel  of  its  em- 
bryonic and  ancestral  development  down  to  its 
finest  details.  It  would  serve  as  an  excellent 
object-lesson.  He  would  take  it,  not  from  some 
remote  corner  of  the  system,  such  as  the  sponges  or 
medusae,  but  from  the  very  top  of  the  tree,  where 
palingenesis  and  cenogenesis  seemed  to  have 
culminated  in  an  inextricable  confusion.  But  what 
example  could  be  more  appropriate  and  effective 
than  the  most  advanced  of  all  living  things — 
man.  He  would  write  a  monograph  on  man  on 
an  entirely  new  method;  would  show  ontogeny 
and  phylogeny  confirming  each  other  down  to 
the  smallest  detail.  It  was  another  great  enter- 
prise. And  this  particular  subject  was  so  inte- 
resting that  it  would  appeal  strongly  to  the  general 
readers  of  his  History  of  Creation  as  well  as  to 
the  academic  scientists.  Man  was  a  subject  of 
such  obviousness  and  importance  to  the  layman 
that  in  this  case  there  was  really  no  professional 
limitation  of  interest  at  all.  Every  detail  in  the 
most  technical  treatment  of  the  subject  would  be 
taken  into  account,  and  evoked  his  strongest 
sympathy. 

When  Haeckel  had  fully  matured  this  plan, 
he  produced  his  Anthropogeny,^  The  word, 
founded  on  the  Greek,  means  the  *'  genesis  "  or 
''evolution  of  man." 

The  work   is    a   very  able  combination    of  two 

*  The  fifth  edition  is  translated  into  English,  with  all  the 
plates  and  illustrations,  under  the  title  of  The  Evolution  of 
Man.    [Trans.] 


280  HAECKEL 

different  aims.  On  the  one  hand  it  affords  the 
technical  student  the  outline  of  a  wholly  new 
and  distinctive  manual  of  human  embryology 
(up  to  a  certain  extent)  and  general  anatomy ; 
and  this  is  intimately  bound  up  by  his  method 
with  a  kind  of  historical  introduction  to  general 
anthropology.  At  the  same  time  the  book  forms 
a  second  part  of  the  History  of  Creation.  It 
builds  up  the  most  important  chapter  of  the 
later  work,  from  the  philosophical  point  of  view, 
namely,  that  which  deals  with  the  origin  of  man, 
into  a  fresh  volume ;  and  it  represents  the  first 
popular  treatment  of  embryology  on  broad  philo- 
sophic lines — a  thing  that  had  never  been  at- 
tempted before.  Springing  up  from  this  double 
root,  the  work  is  certainly  one  of  the  most  suc- 
cessful things  in  the  whole  of  Haeckel's  literary 
career.  Moreover,  it  is  not  merely  a  compendium 
of  a  larger  work,  like  the  History  of  Creation.  In 
spirit  and  form  it  is  an  original  work,  and  gives 
his  very  best  to  the  reader.  As  far  as  its 
general  effect  is  concerned,  the  double-address  of 
the  work  has  had  its  disadvantages.  The  academic 
students  who  were  hostile  to  it  have  once  more 
selected  for  attack  certain  excrescences  and  gaps 
that  were  merely  due  to  the  exigencies  of  popular 
treatment.  On  the  other  hand,  the  general 
reader  found  it,  in  spite  of  the  popular  form,  on 
which  Herculean  labour  had  been  spent — one  has 
only  to  think  of  the  details  of  embryology — a 
book  that  was  not  to  be  *'read"  in  the  ordinary 
sense  of  the  word,  but  studied.     The  first  edition 


GROWTH    OF    IDEAS  281 

appeared  in  1874.  A  fifth  edition  has  now  been 
pubhshed,  equipped  with  the  finest  illustrations, 
both  from  the  artistic  and  the  scientific  point  of 
view,  that  have  ever  appeared  in  a  popular  work 
on  embryology.  We  find  in  the  Anthropogeny 
all  that  the  nineteenth  century  has  learned  or 
surmised  with  regard  to  the  ancestral  history  of 
mankind.  Even  the  gastraea-theory — the  gastraea 
belonging  to  man's  direct  ancestry — is  dealt  w4th 
in  popular  fashion  as  far  as  this  was  possible. 

When  the  Anthropogeny  was  published  Haeckel's 
public  position  became  more  stormy  than  ever. 
In  professional  circles  a  number  of  the  embryolo- 
gists  had  taken  up  an  attitude  of  opposition  to 
him ;  the  most  heated  of  them  attacked  his 
popular  works  continually  on  the  ground  that 
he  was  popularising,  not  the  real  results  of 
official  science,  but  his  own  personal  opinions. 
There  was  a  great  deal  of  truth  in  that.  The 
only  question  was,  which  would  stand  best  with 
the  future,  his  or  their  personal  opinion  ?  It  does 
not  alter  the  subjectivity  of  opinions  that  a  few 
people  here  and  there  combine  and  pretentiously 
constitute  themselves  into  a  '-'■  science."  Posterity 
will  deal  coolly  enough  with  their  collective 
decisions.  It  will  take  every  man  of  science  as  an 
individual,  and  merely  ask  which  of  them  came 
nearest  to  the  truth.  The  name,  the  official 
science,  will  pass  into  the  grave  with  many  titles 
and  decorations.  All  that  will  remain  in  men's 
minds  is  the  star  of  the  personality  in  its  relation 
to  the  great  constellation  of  contemporary  human 


282  HAECKEL 

truth.  However,  as  regards  the  particular 
embryological  attacks  of  these  opponents,  it  seems 
to  me  to-day  especially  characteristic  that  such 
people  are  more  and  more  abandoning  the  idea 
that  it  is  only  a  question  of  contesting  certain 
particular  deductions  of  Haeckel's  within  the 
limits  of  Darwinism.  They  find  themselves 
increasingly  compelled  to  throw  Darwinism 
overboard  altogether.  Instead  of  its  attempts 
to  explain  phenomena  they  are  putting  forward 
a  confused  claim  of  **  direct  mechanical  explana- 
tions," or  relying  on  the  sonorous  old  phrase, 
started  in  1859,  an  ^'immanent  law  of  evolution," 
or  retreating  into  a  despairing  attitude  of  "  I  don't 
know."  These  clearer  divisions  will  make  it 
very  much  easier  for  posterity  to  pass  its  judg- 
ment on  the  situation. 

After  the  embryologists  we  have  a  considerable 
group  of  opponents  on  the  anthropological  side. 
The  objections  of  these  anthropological  critics 
have  in  the  course  of  time  narrowed  down  to  the 
single  argument  that  no  transitional  form  between 
man  and  the  ape  has  yet  been  discovered.  And 
for  many  years  now  this  position  has  not  been 
held  on  serious  scientific  grounds,  but  rather  on 
ingenious  and  strained  hypotheses.  Because  we 
now  have,  in  the  bones  found  at  Java  by  Eugen 
Dubois  in  1894,  the  remains  of  a  being  that 
stands  precisely  half-way  between  the  gibbon  and 
man.  Hence  what  is  called  the  anti-Darwinian 
and  especially  anti-Haeckelian  school  of  anthro- 
pology   to-day    is    mainly    distinguished    for    its 


GROWTH    OF    IDEAS  283 

preference  of  more  risky  and  more  subtle  hypotheses 
instead  of  plain  conclusions  from  obvious  facts. 
Finally,  there  is  the  theological  opposition  to 
Haeckel  that  increased  with  every  book  in  which 
he  put  his  ideas  before  the  general  public  and 
helped  them  (in  their  boundless  professional 
wisdom)  to  realise  the  danger  of  the  situation. 

The  year  1877  was  a  critical  one  in  this  respect. 
In  the  middle  of  his  struggles  Haeckel  retained 
all  the  simplicity  of  his  nature.  He  saw  that  the 
idea  of  evolution  w^as  triumphing  over  all  obstacles 
and  rapidly  securing  the  allegiance  of  the  best 
men  of  the  time.  On  the  18th  of  September,  1877, 
he  spoke  of  this  with  unrestrained  delight  at 
the  scientific  congress  at  Munich.  He  described 
the  theory  of  evolution  as  *Hhe  most  important 
advance  that  has  been  made  in  pure  and  applied 
science."  Then  Kudolf  Virchow  delivered  a 
speech  at  the  same  congress. 

There  is  no  doubt  whatever  that  in  the  period 
since  Virchow  had  indicated  a  neutral  field  in 
1863,  in  which  science  might  effect  ^'  its  com- 
promise," Haeckel  had  boldly  invaded  that 
province.  In  the  previous  year  he  had  published 
a  little  work  called  The  Ferigenesis  of  the  Plas- 
tidideSy  or  the  Generation  of  Waves  in  Vital 
Particles.  It  was  delivered  in  lecture-form  at  the 
medical-scientific  congress  at  Jena  in  November, 
1875,  and  then  printed  on  the  occasion  of  Seebeck's 
jubilee,  May  9,  1876.  Possibly  it  is  the  least 
known  of  all  Haeckel's  works,  though  in  my 
opinion  it  is  one  of  the  most  valuable  in  regard 


284  HAECKEL 

to  the  prophetic  breadth  of  its  intuition.  It  essays 
to  establish  a  theory  of  heredity.  In  dealing  with 
this  deepest  mystery  of  life  psychic  factors  are 
pressed  into  service  without  reserve.  Not  only  is 
the  cell-soul  put  into  prominence,  but  the  cell 
in  turn  is  resolved  into  a  number  of  smaller  units, 
the  plastidules.  Each  plastidule  is  then  conceived 
as  a  psychic  unity.  The  souls  of  the  plastidules 
are  endowed  with  memory;  that  is  the  root  of 
heredity.  They  learn ;  that  is  the  psychological 
expression  of  adaptation.  The  little  work  offers 
a  suggestion  of  a  psychology  of  Darwinism  that 
may  very  well  become  the  nucleus  of  the  whole 
Darwinian  structure  in  the  twentieth  century. 
But  at  the  time  it  was  quite  obvious  that  a  man 
with  such  ideas  as  these  was  breaking  with  lusty 
fist  through  the  sacred  net  that  spread  before 
Virchow's  reserved  province.  The  hour  had  come, 
therefore,  for  Virchow  to  feel  that  he  must  expel 
the  idea  of  evolution  from  the  whole  field  of 
science,  and  not  merely  from  embryology  and 
anthropology. 

It  is  very  instructive  to  note  how  Virchow 
shifted  his  position  a  little  in  accordance  with  the 
time.  In  his  judgment  science  had  to  make 
peace.  It  had  to  make  concessions  in  certain 
directions.  In  1863  he  had  spoken  of  the  "  ruling 
Churches.*'  Now,  in  1877,  he  speaks  of  the 
freedom  of  science  in  the  *' modern  State."  The 
great  Eulturkampf  had  set  in.  The  Church  was 
for  the  time  being  powerless  in  face  of  the  State. 
Hence  Virchow  now  plays  off   the    State  as  the 


GROWTH    OF    IDEAS  285 

guardian  of  his  tabooed  province.  This  time 
Darwinism  is  supposed  to  be  threatening  the  virgin 
field  in  which  we  exact  scientists  make  our  peace 
with  the  State.  At  the  right  moment  he  adroitly 
points  out  that  the  Social  Democrats  have  taken  to 
Darwinism.  Every  man  on  deck,  then.  That 
must  not  go  any  further.  At  the  bottom  it  was 
the  old  contest.  If  one  lays  down  as  a  general 
principle  that  the  scientific  pursuit  and  present- 
ment of  truth  has  to  respect  neutral  provinces  and 
make  concessions,  every  change  in  current  affairs 
will  demand  a  fresh  application  of  it.  To-day  it  is 
some  Church  or  other,  to-morrow  a  State,  the  next 
day  the  momentary  code  of  morals,  and  lastly 
some  bumbledom  or  other  that  renews  the  pro- 
hibition to  dissect  corpses,  because  our  dissecting 
knives  disturb  the  peace  of  mind  of  our  Philistine 
neighbours.  Haeckel  published  a  sharp  reply  to 
Virchow  (Free  Science  and  Free  Teaching^  1878), 
in  which  he  sought  to  show  amongst  other  things, 
taking  his  stand  on  his  political  principles,  that 
Socialism  and  Darwinism  have  nothing  to  do  with 
each  other. 

I  will  not  go  more  fully  into  the  controversy 
here.  If  one  province  of  knowledge  is  to  receive 
light  from  another  at  all,  we  must  admit  that 
there  is  only  one  general  truth.  All  stationary 
or  reactionary  political  interest  is  irreconcilable 
with  the  theory  of  evolution.  That  is  clear  from 
the  very  meaning  of  the  words.  As  to  the  direction 
in  which  we  must  seek  real  political  and  social 
progress  opinions  are   bound   to   differ  very  con- 


286  HAECKEL 

siderably ;  it  may  be  shown  that  the  laws  of 
evolution  which  have  selected  the  various  species 
of  plants  and  animals  can  only  be  used  very 
sparingly  and  cautiously  for  the  promotion  of 
human  progress.  But  I  believe  that  is  quite  an 
immaterial  point  in  this  matter  of  Virchow's 
attack.  The  real  influence  of  Darwinism  on 
political  questions  is  not  the  chief  question.  The 
principle  we  have  to  determine  is  whether  the 
freedom  of  scientific  research  and  the  teaching  of 
what  the  individual  student  believes  he  has  dis- 
covered to  be  true  are  to  have  **  external  '' 
restrictions  or  not.  The  question  is  whether 
inquiry  and  teaching  are  to  be  regarded  merely 
as  things  ^* tolerated"  and  interfered  with  at  will 
amongst  the  various  elements  of  modern  life;  or 
whether  they  are  not  to  be  considered  the  very 
bed-rock  of  civilisation,  and  every  agency  that  has 
power  for  the  moment  is  not  doomed  whenever 
it  comes  into  collision  with  them. 

In  this  momentous  duel  of  the  two  men  who 
were  regarded  at  the  time  as  unquestionably  the 
most  distinguished  scientists  in  Germany  it  seemed 
to  most  people  for  a  time  that  Haeckel  had  gone 
off  altogether  into  general  and  public  questions 
with  regard  to  the  aim  of  research  and  philosophy. 
He  seemed  to  lend  colour  to  the  belief  as  he 
published,  in  quick  succession,  a  number  of  new 
popular  lectures  (Cell-souls  and  Soul-cells,  1878, 
and  The  Origin  and  Evolution  of  the  Sense- 
organs,  1878),  and  at  the  same  time  published 
a   collected  volume   of    older   and  recent  Essays 


GROWTH    OF    IDEAS  287 

on  the  Theory  of  Evohition  (one  part  in  1878,  a 
second  in  1879,  and  a  new  and  enlarged  edition  in 
1902).  .  As  a  matter  of  fact,  we  find  him  in  these 
years  occupied  with  a  small  but  particularly 
well-lit  field  of  his  whole  work.  It  was  not 
merely  that  in  a  few  years  he  buried  himself  in 
the  primitive  forests  of  Ceylon,  in  order  to  pursue 
his  special  studies  far  removed  from  all  civilisation 
for  months  together.  Just  at  this  date  appeared 
the  great  monograph  on  the  medusae,  which  he 
had  at  length  concluded.  The  first  volume  {The 
System  of  the  Mediisce,  with  40  coloured  plates) 
was  published  in  1879,  and  the  second  (The 
Deei^-sea  Meditsce  of  the  Challenger  Expedition 
and  the  Organisms  of  the  Medusce^  with  32  plates) 
in  1881.  And  while  these  splendid  volumes 
showed  his  academic  colleagues  that  he  had  no 
mind  to  remain  entirely  on  the  outer  battlements 
as  a  philosophic  champion,  he  plunged  up  to  the 
ears  in  a  new  special  study  of  a  range  that  would 
have  made  even  the  most  enthusiastic  specialist 
recoil. 

From  December,  1872,  to  May,  1876,  the  Enghsh 
had  conducted  a  peaceful  enterprise  that  will  be 
for  ever  memorable.  A  staff  of  distinguished 
naturalists  had  gone  on  the  ship  Challenger  to 
explore  the  depth,  temperature,  and  bottom  of 
remote  seas.  With  the  aid  of  the  best  appliances 
specimens  of  the  mud  from  the  floor  of  the  ocean 
(sometimes  more  than  a  mile  in  depth)  were 
brought  up  at  354  different  spots.  It  was  known 
from  earlier  deep-sea  explorations  that  this  slime 


288  HAECKEL 

on  the  floor  of  the  ocean,  from  a  certain  coast-limit 
into  the  deepest  parts,  is  composed  for  the  most 
part  of   the  microscopically  small  shells  of  little 
marine  animals.     The  living  creatures  that  form 
these  shells  swim  in  the  water  of  the  ocean,  partly 
at  the  surface  and  partly  at  various  depths  beneath 
it.     When  they  die  the  little  hard  coat  of  mail 
sinks  to  the  bottom,  and  as  there  are  millions  upon 
millions  of  them  living  in  the  sea,  thick  deposits 
are  gradually  formed  at  the  bottom  that  consist 
almost  entirely  of  these  microscopic  shells.     The 
animals  in  question  are  primitive  little  creatures 
consisting  of  a  single  cell,  of  the  type  that  Haeckel 
has  called  ^'Protists."     Even  in  Ehrenberg's  time 
it  had  been  noticed  that  amongst  the  shells  in  the 
deep-sea  mud  there  were,  besides  chalky  shells,  a 
number  of  graceful  flinty  coats  that  clearly  pointed 
to  the  radiolaria.     The  Challenger  expedition  now 
made  the  great  discovery  that  vast  fields  at  the 
floor  of  the  ocean,  especially  of  the  Pacific,  were 
covered  almost  exclusively  with  these  flinty  shells. 
It  was  seen  at  once  that  the  few  hundred  species 
of  radiolaria  that  had  hitherto  been  described  by 
Haeckel  and  others  were  only  a  very  small  part  of 
the  masses  of  radiolaria  found  in  the  ocean.     The 
specimens   of   the   deposits   which   were   carefully 
preserved   and  brought   home   by  the    Challenger 
contained  such  an  immense  number  of  unknown 
species  with  their  flinty  shells  faultlessly  preserved, 
that  it  was  necessary  to  reconstruct  the  whole  of 
this  wonderful  group  of  animals.     And  who  could 
be   better   qualified   for  the  work   than   the   man 


GROWTH    OF    IDEAS  289 

who  had  already  made  a  name  by  his  study  of  the 
radiolaria,  Haeckel  ? 

When  the  EngUsh  Government  came  to  publish 
the  results  of  the  Challenger  expedition  in  a 
monumental  work  (of  fifty  volumes),  he  was 
entrusted  with  the  work  on  the  siphonophores,  the 
corneous  sponges,  and  all  the  radiolaria  in  the 
collection.  For  ten  years,  from  1877  to  1887, 
Haeckel  devoted  every  available  hour  to  the 
work  of  selecting  the  radiolarian  shells  with  his 
microscope  from  these  specimens  of  the  deep-sea 
deposits,  and  naming,  describing,  and  drawing  the 
new  species.  When  he  began  his  task  810  species 
of  radiolaria  were  known  to  science.  When  he 
came  to  his  provisional  conclusion,  ten  years 
afterwards,  though  his  material  was  not  yet 
exhausted,  there  were  4,318  species  and  739  genera. 
They  are  described  in  the  splendid  work  that  he 
wrote  for  the  Clialleiigei'  Keport.  It  consists  of 
two  volumes  of  text  (in  English)  with  2,750  pages 
and  140  large  plates,  with  the  title,  Beport  on  the 
Badiolaria  collected  by  H.M.S.  Challenger,  In 
the  preparation  of  these  plates  (and  in  the  illus- 
tration of  all  his  later  works)  he  had  the  very 
valuable  assistance  of  the  gifted  Jena  designer  and 
lithographer,  Adolph  Giltch.  A  good  deal  of  new 
information  with  regard  to  v.  e  living  body  of  the 
radiolaria  had  come  to  light  since  1862.  In 
particular  it  had  now  been  settled  beyond  question 
that  they  consisted  merely  of  a  single  cell.  There 
was,  therefore,  a  good  opportunity  of  reconstructing 
the  Monograph  of  1862  with  the  new  and  more 

19 


290  HAECKEL 

comprehensive  work.  The  chief  contents  of  the 
English  work  (with  a  selection  of  the  plates)  were 
then  published  in  German,  and  appeared  in  1887 
and  1888  as  the  second,  third,  and  fourth  parts 
of  the  Monograph  on  the  Badiolaria.  A  sort  of 
supplementary  essay  on  the  methods  of  studying 
the  radiolaria  and  cognate  '^plancton"  animals  was 
published  separately  with  the  title  of  Planctonic 
studies  (1890).  Though  it  was  a  moderate  and 
tactful  criticism  of  the  methods  of  some  of  his 
colleagues  in  this  kind  of  work,  it  was  *' refuted" 
by  them  in  a  way  that  it  would  be  difficult  to 
qualify — in  other  words,  it  was  fruitlessly  assailed 
with  charges  of  the  most  general  but  most  un- 
pleasant character.  In  the  English  Report  we  find 
two  other  volumes  afterwards  from  Haeckel — the 
volume  on  the  siphonophorae  in  1888,  and  the 
Heport  on  the  Deep-sea  Keratosa  collected  by  H.M.S. 
Challenger  in  1889 ;  these  again  opened  up  new 
chapters  in  zoology.  The  Challenger  work  is  the 
crown  of  Haeckel's  studies  as  a  specialist.  To  some 
extent  the  conclusion  of  it  closes  an  epoch  in  his  life. 

We  will  only  touch  briefly  on  what  he  has  done 
since.  It  has  not  yet  passed  into  the  region  of  history. 

The  latest  years  in  Haeckel's  constructive  work 
are  characterised  mainly  by  one  idea.  He  had 
often  been  pressed  to  work  up  afresh  the  material 
of  his  General  Morphology.  He  has  not  done  so  in 
the  form  that  was  expected,  but  chose  a  form  of 
his  own.  In  the  first  place  he  took  the  systematic 
introduction  to  the  second  volume,  which  had  been 
the  first  able  attempt  to  draw  up  the  genealogical 


GROWTH    OF    IDEAS  291 

tree  of  the  living  world,  branch  by  branch,  and, 
with  the  material  that  had  accumulated  in  the 
subsequent  thirty-four  years,  built  it  up  into  a 
separate  work.  It  had  consisted  formerly  of  160 
pages  :  now  it  formed  three  volumes  of  1,800  pages. 
There  were  forty  years  of  incessant  study  embodied 
in  it.  It  had  the  title  Systematic  Fhijlogeyiy :  * 
^'  a  sketch  of  a  natural  system  of  organisms  on  the 
basis  of  their  stem-history.*'  The  first  volume 
(dealing  with  the  protists  and  plants)  appeared  in 
1894 ;  the  second  volume  (dealing  with  the  in- 
vertebrate animals)  in  1896,  and  the  third  (dealing 
with  the  vertebrates)  in  1895.  Closely  connected 
with  it  is  his  special  systematic  study  of  the 
stem-history  of  the  echinoderms  (star-fish,  &c.), 
with  particular  reference  to  paleontology  {The 
ainphoridea  and  cystoidea  in  the  Worh  in  Com- 
memoration  of  Karl  Gegenhaur^  1896). 

His  academic  colleagues  had  hardly  begun  to 
master  this  new  phylogeny  when  Haeckel  once 
more  roused  a  general  agitation  by  working  up  the 
philosophic  nucleus  of  the  Morphology  in  a  more 
general  form  than  he  had  done  in  the  History  of 
Creation,  This  new  work  was  The  Riddle  of  the 
Universe^  ''  a  popular  study  of  the  Monistic  philo- 
sophy." i  It  was,  he  declared,  his  philosophical 
testament.  In  a  few  months  10,000  copies  of  the 
w^ork  were  sold,  and  a  later  cheap  popular  edition 

*  It  has  not  been  translated  into  English.  A  recent  re- 
viewer in  Nature  pronounced  it  to  be  Haeckel's  best  work. 
[Trans.] 

t  Literally,  the  title  is  "  World-Eiddles,"  or  •'  World- 
Problems."     [Trans.] 


292  HAECKEL 

ran  to  more  than  100,000  copies.  It  has  also  been 
translated  into  fourteen  different  languages.  The 
controversy  it  excited  has  not  yet  died  away. 
Already  a  supplementary  volume,  The  Wonders  of 
Life^  has  followed  it  (1904).  Haeckel  had  been 
working  in  this  department  with  great  vigour  for 
many  years.  He  only  made  one  appearance  at  a 
German  scientific  congress  since  the  Virchow  aSair. 
That  was  on  September  18,  1882,  in  quiet  and 
uncontroversial  form.  A  little  excitement  was 
caused  amongst  those  who  saw  their  salvation  in 
keeping  the  gentle  Darwin  far  apart  from  the 
impetuous  Haeckel  when  he  read  a  rather  free 
philosophical  confession  of  Darwin's.  Their  tactics 
broke  down  as  the  deceased  Darwin  passed  into  an 
historical  personality  and  disappeared  from  the 
struggle  of  contending  parties.  In  1892  Haeckel 
wrote  with  great  vigour  in  the  militant  Berlin 
journal,  the  Freie  Billine^  on  the  new  alliance  of  the 
Church  and  political  parties  in  Germany,  criticising 
the  political  situation  on  general  philosophical 
principles,  and  in  opposition  to  Virchow's  spirit  of 
compromise.  In  the  same  year  he  delivered  at 
Altenburg  a  lecture  on  *^  Monism  as  a  connecting 
link  between  religion  and  science."  In  this  he 
took  a  conciliatory  line,  and  showed  how  his  philo- 
sophic views  could  be  reconciled  with  any  really 
sincere  pursuit  of  truth,  whatever  aim  it  professed 
to  have.  The  address  closed  with  the  words : 
''  May  God,  the  spirit  of  the  good,  the  beautiful, 
and  the  true,  grant  it."  However,  both  his 
criticism  and  his  attempt  at  conciliation  only  led 


Ernst  Haeckel,  1896. 
From  a  photograph  by  Gabriel  Max. 


To  face  p.  292, 


GROWTH    OF    IDEAS  293 

to  further  and  more  bitter  attacks  in  certain 
quarters.  His  only  reply  was  to  bring  out  the 
first  numbers  of  a  fine  illustrated  work — a  work 
that  came  from  a  quite  different  depth  of  his 
rich  personality.  This  was  the  Art-forms  in 
Nature  [not  translated],  a  collection  of  beautiful 
forms  of  radiolaria,  sponges,  siphonophores,  &c., 
for  artists  and  admirers  of  the  beautiful.  It  was  a 
work  such  as  he  alone  could  produce.  '*  In  the 
storm  didst  thou  begin  :  in  the  storm  shalt  thou 
end,"  he  might  have  said  to  himself,  in  the  words 
of  David  Strauss.  The  storm  never  left  him.  In 
its  mood  was  flung  off  with  ready  pen  the  Biddle 
of  the  Universe.  "  Up,  old  warrior,  gird  thy 
loins!"  as  we  read  in  Strauss. 

* 
The  biographical  sketch  of  a  living  man  does  not 
close  with  a  stroke,  but  with  three  stars.  They 
glow  still,  these  stars.  Under  their  influence  much 
may  yet  happen — much  struggle,  much  peace. 
In  view  of  the  general  situation  of  our  time  there  is 
little  hope  that  the  last  stretch  of  this  extra- 
ordinary career  will  be  spent  in  peace,  though 
behind  it  all  lies  the  peace-loving  soul  of  an 
artist.  But  if  Haeckel's  career  is  to  be  one  of 
struggle  to  the  last  hour,  he  may  console  him- 
self with  the  noble  words  of  Goethe  : — 

"  And  when  at  length  the  long  gray  lashes  fall 
A  gentle  light  will  broaden  o'er  the  scene, 
In  whose  effulgence  our  remoter  sons 
Will  read  the  lineaments  of  yonder  stars, 
And  in  the  loftier  view  to  which  they  rise 
Of  God  and  man  a  loftier  image  hold." 


CHAPTER  VIII 

THE    CROWNING   YEARS 
[By  Joseph  McCabe] 

WHEN  Professor  Bolsche  closed  his  bio- 
graphical sketch  in  1900  with  the  three 
stars  that  '^  still  glowed,"  he  had  little  suspicion 
how  widely  they  would  yet  flame  out  before  they 
passed  from  the  firmament  of  biography  to  that  of 
history.  As  it  has  proved,  Haeckel  was  then  only 
entering  upon  the  period  of  vast  popular  influence 
which  forms  the  closing  part  of  his  remarkable 
career.  He  had  in  1900  a  few  thousand  thoughtful 
readers  in  several  countries  beside  his  own.  To- 
day he  is  read  by  hundreds  of  thousands  in 
Germany,  England,  France,  and  Italy,  and  the 
fourtee]!  different  translations  of  his  most  popular 
work  have  carried  his  ideas  over  the  whole  world. 
To-day  the  thoughts  of  this  professor  of  zoology  in 
an  obscure  German  town  are  discussed  eagerly  by 
bronzed  and  blackened  artisans  in  the  workshops 
of  London,  Paris,  and  Tokio,  as  well  as  throughout 
Germany.     The  reader  will  have  noticed   in  the 

291 


THE    CKOWNING    YEARS  295 

earlier  chapters  that  the  most  dignified  and  dis- 
dainful of  Haeckel's  opponents  have  been  the 
academic  philosophers.  In  the  year  1905  a  Berlin 
professor  of  philosophy,  a  stern  critic  of  his 
system,  devotes  a  long  special  section  of  his 
History  of  Philosophy  since  Kant  to  Haeckel  and 
his  long-contemned  speculations.  Why  ?  Because, 
to  quote  his  concluding  sentences,  ^'  the  far- 
reaching  impulse  that  Haeckel  has  given  will  never 
more  die  out.  He  has  become  a  sower  of  the 
future.  The  glad  echo  that  his  words  have  found 
in  a  hundred  thousand  breasts  must  stir  every 
representative  of  ruling  power  in  Church  and 
Science  to  make  a  closer  self-examination,  a  closer 
scrutiny  of  received  ideas.  Does  not  the  thought 
press  irresistibly  upon  us  that  somehow  or  other 
we  have  entered  upon  the  wrong  path  in  our 
modern  development  ?  "  * 

In  an  earlier  chapter  Professor  Bolsche  tells  the 
moving  story  of  the  writing  of  the  General  Morph- 
ology :  the  young  man  making  his  masterly  appeal 
to  the  scientists  of  G-ermany,  which  he  thinks  they 
will  read  over  his  grave.  There  is  a  singular  par- 
allel to  this  in  Haeckel's  attitude  at  the  time  when 
Bolsche  closed  his  work.  Haeckel  had  just  written 
another  '*  last  will  and  testament,"  another  proud 
and  defiant  utterance  of  what  he  felt  to  be  the 
truth  about  God  and  man  and  nature.  Once  more 
he  seemed  to  see  the  marble  gates  at  the  close  of 
his  career,  and  his  sombre  glance  fell  round  on  a 

*  Dr.  Otto  Gramzow's  Geschichte  der  PJiilosojjhie  seit  Kani, 
p.  503. 


296  HAECKEL 

world  that  was,  he  thought,  sinking  into  reaction. 
This  time  he  appealed  to  the  people.  The  five 
years  that  have  followed  have  witnessed  an  extra- 
ordinary response  on  the  part  of  the  people. 
With  the  speed  of  a  popular  romance  his  work 
has  flown  through  Europe.  He  has  received  a 
hundred  proofs  that,  at  all  events,  the  ideas  he 
thinks  to  be  fraught  with  salvation  for  humanity 
are  being  considered  and  discussed  in  wide 
circles  that  had  never  before  known  that  there 
was  a  ''  riddle  of  the  universe."  He  has  been 
urged  in  the  heart  of  the  Sahara  to  read  his 
own  works.  He  has  met,  as  he  travelled  on  an 
Alpine  railway,  cultured  nuns  who  told  him  they 
had  learned  evolution  from  ''  Professor  Haeckel's 
works."  He  has  looked  down  with  mingled  feehng 
on  the  wild  applause  of  a  gathering  of  thousands 
of  Socialists.  He  has  been  immortalised — strangest 
and  last  of  all  apotheoses — in  an  academic  history 
of  philosophy ! 

The  present  chapter  will  tell  the  story  of  these 
five  stirring  years.  It  will  aim  at  conveying 
to  the  English  reader,  by  plain  presentment  of 
facts,  a  full  picture  of  the  activity  that  has 
attracted  or  distracted  the  attention  of  so  many 
m  the  last  few  years.  If  Dr.  Gramzow  is  right, 
if  through  these  five  years  of  indefatigable 
labour  the  aged  scientist  has  become  a  "  sower  of 
the  future,"  it  is  w^ell  for  friend  and  foe  to 
understand  him. 

There  is  only  one  respect  in  which  one's 
personal   feeling   may   be   allowed   to   tinge   such 


THE    CROWNING    YEARS  297 

a  narrative  as  this.  For  good  or  evil  Haeckel's 
great  influence  on  our  generation  is  a  reality. 
It  is  the  biographer's  duty  to  record  and  measure 
it :  the  reader's  to  appraise  it.  The  future 
historian  of  the  dramatic  course  of  humanity's 
ideals  must  be  left  to  interpret  it  in  cosmic  perspec- 
tive. Do  the  stars  exult,  or  do  they  grow  thinner 
and  colder  in  their  light,  over  this  great  stirring  ? 
The  far-distant  generation,  that  will  have  reached 
the  summit  of  the  hill,  will  know.  We  who,  with 
narrow  horizon,  are  cutting  our  fond  paths  up 
the  slope,  have  but  the  poor  luxuries  of  faith  and 
hope.  Yet  there  is  one  aspect  of  Haeckel's  recent 
life  that  makes  us  almost  forget  the  cosmic  issues. 
These  five  years  have  been,  in  literal  truth, 
^*  crowning  years"  of  his  aims.  For  all  the 
slights  and  insults  that  have  been  showered  on 
the  grim  worker  he  has  had  a  rich  recompense 
of  honour  and  love.  Even  if  his  ideas  are  to 
fade  and  wither  like  his  laurel  crowns,  it  will  be 
something  for  a  future  historian  to  record  that 
a  gentler  and  more  genial  light  fell  about  his 
closing  years.  As  Gramzow  says  :  '*  He  tried  to 
give  us  his  best." 

An  event  that  Professor  Bolsche  has  only 
briefly  alluded  to  in  his  last  crowded  chapter 
was  a  fitting  inauguration  of  the  last  decade  of 
Haeckel's  career.  On  the  17th  of  February, 
1894,  his  sixtieth  birthday  was  celebrated  at  Jena. 
The  lover  of  nature  and  of  the  silent  study  passes 
uneasily  through  such  functions,  but  the  student 
of  Haeckel's  life  must  dwell  on  it.     Jena  had  for 


298  HAECKEL 

some  years  realised  that  world-fame  somehow 
attached  to  the  straight,  smiling  figure  that  it  saw 
passing  daily  to  the  Zoological  Institute.  It  had 
witnessed  the  grave  procedure  of  the  boycot  in  the 
sixties.  It  had  heard  distinguished  leaders  of 
Churches,  like  Professor  Michelis,  brand  his  works 
as  ^'  a  fleck  of  shame  on  the  escutcheon  of 
Germany,"  *'  an  attack  on  the  foundations  of 
religion  and  morality,"  ^^  a  symptom  of  senile 
marasmus."  It  saw  all  these  unworthy  attacks 
sink  into  confusion,  and  a  new  era  begin.  It 
heard  of  greater  universities  competing  for  their 
professor  and  his  refusal  to  leave  them.  It  saw 
Bismarck  fall  on  his  neck  and  kiss  him  repeatedly 
when,  in  1892,  he  headed  the  deputation  to  invite 
him  to  Jena ;  and  it  noted  how  the  Prince  abso- 
lutely refused  to  drive  through  their  town  '^  unless 
Haeckel  comes  with  me "  in  the  carriage.  It 
gave  his  name  proudly  to  one  of  its  fine  new 
streets. 

In  February,  1894,  Jena  witnessed  a  remarkable 
celebration — remarkable  not  only  to  those  who 
had  lived  with  him  in  the  sixties.  A  marble 
bust  of  Haeckel  was  unveiled  by  Professor  Hert- 
wig,  with  noble  speech,  in  the  Zoological  Institute. 
A  festive  dinner,  such  as  Germans  alone  can 
conduct,  was  held  in  the  famous  Luther-Hostel. 
More  than  a  thousand  letters  and  telegrams 
poured  in  from  all  parts  of  the  world,  and  scores 
of  Journals  awoke  the  interest  of  Germany.  I 
have  before  me  the  privately-published  report  on 
the  celebration,  autographed  to  "  Agnes  Haeckel." 


THE    CROWNING    YEARS  299 

Two  lists  in  it  catch  the  eye.  One  is  a  list 
of  Haeckel's  publications.  Apart  from  his  long 
and  numerous  articles  in  scientific  journals  he 
has  written  forty -two  works  (13,000  pages, 
frequently  quarto)  in  thirty-three  years.  All  but 
two  are  pure  contributions  to  science  :  some  of 
them  are  classical  monographs  of  original  re- 
search; most  are  beautifully  illustrated  by  him- 
self. The  second  list  gives  the  names  of  those 
who  have  contributed  towards  the  marble  bust 
by  Professor  Kopf,  of  Eome.  It  is  worthy  of 
science.  It  includes  five  hundred  university 
professors  and  heads  of  academic  institutions  in 
all  parts  of  the  world,  from  Brazil  and  the  States 
to  Algiers  and  Egypt  and  India.  In  their  name 
Professor  Hertwig  greeted  Haeckel  as  one  "  who 
has  written  his  name  in  letters  of  light  in  the 
history  of  science.'*  From  Italy  the  Minister 
of  Public  Instruction  sent  the  following  telegram  : 
'^  Italy,  that  you  love  so  much,  takes  cordial  part 
in  all  the  honours  that  the  civilised  nations  of  the 
earth  are  heaping  on  you  in  commemoration  of 
your  sixtieth  birthday.  In  the  name  of  the 
Italian  Universities,  which  love  you  so  much  and 
so  much  admire  your  undying  work,  I  send  you  a 
heartfelt  greeting  and  wishes  for  a  long  and  happy 
and  active  career."  Dr.  Paul  von  Ritter  gave 
75,000  marks  [shillings]  for  the  erection  of  a 
monument  to  Haeckel  at  Jena  when  the  hour 
comes.  He  had  previously  given  300,000  marks 
to  be  spent  in  the  furtherance  of  Haeckel's 
scientific  views. 


300  HAECKEL 

The  story  so  vividly  unfolded  by  Professor 
Bolsche  has  explained  how  the  estrangement  arose 
between  Haeckel  and  so  many  of  his  scientific 
colleagues  in  Germany.  It  is  not  a  little  gratifying 
to  find  the  names  of  some  of  his  critics  amongst 
the  subscribers  to  his  festival.  The  personality, 
the  aim,  the  self-sacrifice  of  the  man,  no  less  than 
his  distinguished  special  contributions  to  science, 
had  won  a  superb  recognition. 

In  the  years  1894-6  Haeckel  published  the 
Systematic  Pliylogeny,  ^'  We  may  differ,"  says 
Professor  Arnold  Lang  of  it,  ''as  to  the  value  of 
special  or  even  fundamental  opinions  in  it,  but 
we  must  stand  before  this  work  in  astonishment 
and  admiration:  astonishment  at  the  vast  range 
of  his  knowledge — it  would  seem  that  one  head 
could  contain  no  more  :  admiration  of  the  intellec- 
tual labour  with  which  the  various  phenomena  are 
connected  and  the  gigantic  mass  of  material  is 
reduced  to  order."  The  Eoyal  Academy  of  Science 
at  Turin  judged  the  work  the  best  that  had  been 
published  in  the  last  four  years  of  the  nineteenth 
century,  and  awarded  its  author  the  Bressa  prize, 
a  sum  of  10,000  lire. 

In  August,  1898,  he  made  a  further  visit  to 
England.  The  International  Congress  of  Zoology 
met  at  Cambridge,  and  Haeckel  was  invited  to 
deliver  an  address.  He  chose  his  ever-present 
theme — the  evolution  of  man.  The  long  lecture, 
or  essay,  has  been  translated  by  Dr.  Gradow  under 
the  title.  The  Last  Link  The  title  is  somewhat 
misleading,  as  only  a  page  or  two  are  devoted  to 


Oi. 

O 
en 

a 

o 

&: 


<»^  ^ 

i-i  o 

.  ^ 

o 

o  ■ 

6  ° 


o 
o  o 

0) 

at- 
•  ca 

1^ 
1-1 

< 


o 


-  O 

t. 

c    - 
? 

c   :; 


z   o 


if 


O 


U  5 


O 

> 

cu 


THE    CROWNING    YEARS  801 

"the  last  link."  Otherwise  the  little  work  offers 
students  a  most  excellent  summary  of  "  our 
present  knowledge  of  the  evolution  of  man,"  the 
title  which  Haeckel  gave  it. 

But  the  last  period  of  Haeckel's  career  is 
associated  chiefly  with,  and  is  really  inaugurated 
by  his  now  famous  Bicldle  of  the  Universe^  published 
in  1899.  To  understand  that  work,  to  avoid  the 
extremes  of  praise  and  censure  that  have  been 
lavished  on  it,  one  must  put  oneself  in  Haeckel's 
position  at  the  close  of  the  last  century.  Mr. 
Wells  has  given  us  a  forecast  of  the  coming 
social  order  in  which  the  intellectual  few  are 
separated  by  a  wider  and  deeper  gulf  than  ever 
from  the  workers  and  the  women  of  the  world. 
That  keen-eyed  and  judicious  social  writer  has 
already  modified  his  forecast,  but  there  were 
symptoms  enough  of  the  possibility  of  such  an 
issue  a  few  years  ago.  In  Germany  the  signs 
were  ominous  to  a  man  like  Haeckel.  The  older 
Liberalism  to  which  he  belonged  by  tradition  and 
conviction  seemed  in  danger  of  being  ground  to 
dust  between  the  upper  and  the  nether  stones  of 
the  new  political  mill — the  increasing  strength  of 
Social  Democracy  and  the  increasing  and  con- 
sequent alliance  of  Conservative  Kaiserism  with 
the  still  powerful  Catholic  Church.  Haeckel 
distrusted  the  power  of  Demos  much  as  Renan 
did  when  he  wrote  his  sombre  dialogues  in  the 
seventies  ;  and  a  political  alliance  with  the  Vatican 
opened  out  to  him  the  grim  prospect  of  a  return 
to   the   Middle   Ages.     The   freedom   of  research 


302  HAECKEL 

and  teaching  for  which  he  had  fought  with 
unsparing  vigour  was,  he  thought,  imperilled  by 
the  new  alliance,  no  less  than  the  very  existence 
of  culture  was  endangered  by  the  triumph  of 
Social  Democracy.  His  academic  colleagues 
remained  in  that  isolation  which  he  had  ever 
bitterly  resented. 

In  face  of  this  situation,  which  seemed  to  grow 
more  sombre  as  the  last  years  of  the  century 
dragged  on,  his  zeal  for  truth  and  progress  had 
but  one  outlet.  He  must  appeal  to  the  people. 
He  must  take  the  conclusions  he  had  so  laboriously 
worked  out  in  his  Systematic  Fhylogeny^  and  trans- 
late them  from  scientific  hieroglyphics  into  a 
demotic  tongue.  He  must  nail  his  theses  with 
his  own  hand  on  the  cathedral  door,  like  the 
great  monk  whose  work  seemed  in  danger  of 
perishing.  The  partial  success  of  his  History  of 
Creation  was  encouraging,  though  that  work  had 
only  penetrated  into  the  first  circle  beyond  the 
sacred  academic  enclosure,  and  was  still  unknown 
to  the  crowd.  G-athering  his  strength  for  what 
he  believed  to  be  his  final  effort,  he  blew  a  blast 
that  would  reach  the  far-off  shop  and  factory.  It 
must  be  no  gentle  note,  no  timid  suggestion  that 
the  scientific  work  of  the  nineteenth  century  had 
thrown  doubt  on  current  religious  notions.  He 
was  quitting  the  stage.  He  believed  these  things 
were  true,  were  established.  The  world  must 
listen  to  them,  must  discuss  them ;  and  then  the 
twentieth  century  would  pass  its  informed  verdict 
over  his  grave. 


THE    CROWNING    YEARS  303 

So  he  wrote  a  vigorous,  an  irritating,  an  awaken- 
ing book.  It  must  be  read  in  this  context.  The 
charge  of  *'  dogmatism  "  so  often  hurled  at  it  is  not 
without  humour.  It  is  generally  raised  by  men  who 
in  the  same  breath  hold  their  truths  so  dogmatically 
that  they  resent  his  very  questions.  They  forget, 
too,  that  the  chief  conclusions  of  the  Biddle  are 
references  to  the  larger  work  in  which,  soundly 
or  unsoundly,  they  are  provided  with  massive 
foundations  of  scientific  material.  In  England 
there  is  some  excuse,  as  the  larger  work  is  un- 
translated and  unknown ;  though  one  may  resent 
the  critic  who  charges  Haeckel  with  egoism  for 
his  constant  references  to  his  other  works  and  then 
proceeds  to  ridicule  the  slenderness  of  the  founda- 
tions of  his  theories.  Further,  it  is  too  often 
forgotten  that  Haeckel  opens  his  work  with  a  rare 
warning  to  the  reader  that  his  opinions  are  very 
largely  ^*  subjective  "  and  his  command  of  other 
subjects  than  biology  is  very  "  unequal."  In  fine, 
his  constant  and  exaggerated  allusions  to  the 
opposition  he  encounters  from  his  scientific 
colleagues  is,  for  any  candid  reader,  a  sufficient 
corrective  of  "  dogmatism." 

The  work  lit  up  at  once  a  flame  of  controversy 
that  has  hardly  yet  diminished  in  Germany. 
Students  have  told  me  how,  when  some  professor 
dropped  the  well-knowm  name  in  the  course  of  his 
lecture,  the  class  would  split  at  once  into  two 
demonstrative  sections.  Ten  thousand  copies  of 
the  library  edition  of  the  work  were  sold  within 
a    few    months,    and    it    quickly    ran    to    eight 


304  HAECKEL 

editions.  This  remarkable  success  irritated  his 
opponents,  and  the  wide  range  of  the  subjects 
touched  in  the  work  gave  them  opportunities. 
Germany  was  deluged  with  pamphlets  of  offence 
and  defence.  Some  of  Haeckel's  pupils  replied  to 
his  opponents,  but  the  master  himself  smiled 
through  the  storm.  His  chief  critics  were  men 
with  no  competence  in  biology,  and  he  was  not 
minded  to  comply  with  their  stratagem  of  with- 
drawing attention  from  the  substantial  positions 
of  the  work.  Dennert,  the  philologist,  swept 
together  all  the  hard  sayings  about  Haeckel  that 
the  fierce  struggle  of  the  preceding  twenty  years 
had  produced — Paulsen  and  Adickes,  the  meta- 
physicians, poured  philosophic  scorn  on  his 
pretensions  to  construct  a  theory  of  knowledge. 
Adickes,  in  particular,  met  him  with  a  vigorous 
fusillade  of  pure  Kantism.  It  is  a  curious  com- 
mentary on  this  long  philosophic  disdain  to  find 
Haeckel  awarded  a  prominent  place  amongst  ^^the 
philosophers  since  Kant." 

Two  points  in  this  connection  are  noteworthy. 
Haeckel's  first  sin  against  the  ruling  metaphysic 
of  the  nineteenth  century  was  his  *'  naive  realism." 
He  had  dared  to  think  he  could  break  beyond 
the  charmed  circle  of  our  states  of  consciousness. 
He  had  dreamed  that  a  real  material  world  lay 
here  in  space  before  the  human  mind  came  into 
existence;  that  a  living,  palpitating  humanity, 
not  a  bloodless  phantasm  in  the  mind,  called  for 
our  most  solemn  efforts.  Where  the  ordinary 
reader  saw  a  truism  the  metaphysicians  recognised 


THE    CROWNING    YEARS  305 

a    deadly   sin,    and    laughed    Homeric    laughter. 
To-day  we  have,  both  in  England  and  Germany,  a 
strong  claim  arising  amongst  the  metaphysicians 
themselves    for    a    return    to     a     realist     basis. 
Haeckel's  second  and  chief  sin  was  his  claim  to 
have  thrown  light  on  the  evolution  of  conscious- 
ness and  his  disdain   of   all   study  of  mind   that 
was   not  grounded  on   evolution.     To-day   Gram- 
zow   writes  :  ^'  The  criticism  which   he  makes  of 
Kant's  theory  of  knowledge  from  the  evolutionary 
point  of  view  is  the  greatest  advance  that  philo- 
sophy has  made  in  that  branch  since  Kant's  time." 
The  most  violent  critics  of  the  Biddle  were  the 
theologians.     It  would  be  improper  here  to  enter 
into    the   controversy,    and   indeed    Haeckel  has 
paid  little  attention   to  his  critics   of  late  years. 
Some  time  ago  a  German  religious  magazine  was 
sent  to  me  in  which  one  of  his  leading  critics  had 
written  a  shameful  article  with  the  aim  of  aliena- 
ting him  from  me.     I  at  once  wrote  to  him,  and 
received  a  letter  brimming   over  with  his   hearty 
laughter  at  the  idea  that  he  might  have  taken  any 
notice  of  what  they  said.     The  eminent  ecclesias- 
tical historian,  Professor  Loofs,  made  a  ponderous 
attack  on  his  incidental  reference  to  the  birth  of 
Christ.     As  Loofs  himself  denied  the  divinity  and 
supernatural   birth   of   Christ,   Haeckel   felt    little 
inclination  to  enter  on  a   serious  argument  about 
the    human   parentage.     The    theologian   was   so 
much  hurt  that  he  used  language,  as  far  as  was 
consistent   with   a  broad  view   of  the  theological 
dignity,  that   came  within   legal  limits,  and  then 

20 


306  HAECKEL 

quoted   to   Haeckel   the   page   and    letter   in   the 
German  code  on  which  he  might  take  action ! 

But  a  great  counterpoise  to  these  bitter  attacks 
— attacks  that  forgot,  as  Gramzow  says,  that 
^^  there  is  an  ethic  for  the  critic  as  well  as  for  the 
man  of  science  " — had  now  been  provided.  Men 
like  Dr.  Schmidt,  Dr.  Breitenbach,  Professor 
Bolsche,  and  Professor  Verworn  rallied  to  their 
master,  and  conveyed  a  juster  image  of  him 
and  his  work  to  the  public.  The  ominous 
silence  of  the  great  biologists  was  felt  to  mean 
that  his  views  were,  in  substance,  no  heresy 
to  them.  The  man's  warm  and  enthusiastic 
zeal  for  truth  and  humanity,  his  earnest 
efforts  to  pierce  the  barriers  that  shut  off  the 
treasures  of  science  from  the  mass,  could  not  be 
ignored.  A  cheaper  edition  of  his  work  was 
demanded,  and  it  was  soon  in  the  hands  of  more 
than  150,000  readers.  Country  after  country 
imported  his  ^^  gospel  of  Monism,"  the  stirring 
agitation  spread  to  France,  England,  America, 
Italy,  and  on  until  it  reached  Australia  and  Japan. 
To-day  fourteen  translations  of  the  Riddle  bear 
his  teaching  to  the  ends  of  the  world. 

Little  need  be  'said  here  of  the  Haeckel  contro- 
versy in  this  country.  I  remember  well  the  day 
when  the  German  work  was  submitted  to  me  with 
a  view  to  publication.  It  did  not  seem  to  have 
the  stuff  of  a  conflagration  in  it.  I  hazarded  a 
guess  that  it  would  sell  a  thousand  copies,  and 
thought  that  it  contained  so  valuable  a  description 
of  the  evolution  of  mind  that  it  should  be  published. 


THE    CROWNING    YEARS  307 

It  has  sold,  with  rather  less  than  the  usual  adver- 
tising, with  no  special  machinery  for  pressing  it 
such  as  is  at  the  command  of  religious  works — 
it  has  sold  about  100,000  copies.  The  success  of 
the  work  astounded  us.  While  we  were  being 
accused  of  "  thrusting  it  down  people's  throats  " 
we  could  not  have  arrested  its  circulation,  had 
we  wished,  without  positively  refusing  to  republish 
it.  Indeed,  the  last  library  edition  has  long  been 
out  of  print,  though  still  in  frequent  demand.  It 
has  made  Haeckel's  a  familiar  name  in  circles 
where  even  Spencer  has  been  heard  to  be  described 
as  '*  a  great  balloonist."  Clergymen  have  written 
to  their  journals  saying  how  they  heard  the 
Monistic  philosophy  discussed  by  groups  of  paviors. 
Sir  Leslie  Stephen  told  me,  on  his  death-bed,  but 
with  a  momentary  flash  of  his  old  humour,  how 
an  Orkney  clergyman  had  written  to  him  for 
consolation,  as  it  was  circulating  amongst  the 
fishers  of  that  ultima  thule.^ 

From  the  seething  agitation  he  had  aroused 
Professor  Haeckel  cheerfully  withdrew  in  the 
autumn  of  1900  to  make  his  long  journey  to  Java. 

'''  The  reader  who  deskes  a  summary  of  the  criticisms 
passed  on  the  work  may  consult  Dr.  Schmidt's  Der  Kampf  um 
die  Weltrdthsel  for  Germany,  and  my  own  HaeckeVs  Critics 
Answered  for  England.  The  only  biologist  of  competence  who 
has  written  on  it  in  this  country  is  Prof.  Lloyd-Morgan 
{Contemporary  Beview,  1903),  but  his  reply  is  indirect.  Sir 
Oliver  Lodge  has  recently  dealt  with  it  at  length  in  his  Life 
and  Matter,  but  the  distinguished  physicist's  conception  of  life 
is  in  extreme  and  general  disfavoui*  with  the  biologists  of 
England. 


308  HAECKEL 

He  now  lived  under  the  public  eye,  and  amusing 
constructions  were  put  on  his  movements.  Ameri- 
can journalism  arrived,  by  its  peculiar  methods,  at 
the  knowledge  that  he  had  gone  in  quest  of  bones 
of  the  *'  missing  link."  A  few  bones  of  a  half- 
human,  half-ape  form  had  been  discovered  on  the 
south  coast  of  Java  a  few  years  previously,  and  the 
trained  American  imagination  quickly  constructed 
a  theory,  which  as  quickly  crystallised  into  fact. 
Haeckel  had  been  heavily  subsidised  by  an  American 
millionaire  to  discover  more  bones  of  the  ape-man 
of  Java.  Not  to  be  outdone,  other  journals  added 
a  rival  subsidy  (from  the  American  Government)  and 
a  rival  search.  The  sober  truth  was  that  Haeckel 
had  used  his  Bressa  prize  fund,  with  a  subsidy 
from  the  Ritter  fund  at  Jena,  to  make  a  study  of 
botany  and  marine  life  in  the  tropics.  He  was 
within  a  hundred  miles  of  the  spot  where  Dubois 
had  found  his  interesting  relics,  but  made  no  effort 
to  go  further.  For  him  the  evolution  of  man  rested 
on  too  massive  a  foundation  for  a  few  bones  to 
increase  its  solidity.  Once  more  he  brought  home 
huge  cases  of  preparations,  a  large  number  of 
sketches  (some  of  them  touched  up  by  Verestcha- 
gin,  who  was  returning  on  the  boat  from  China), 
and  material  for  the  inevitable  book.  Aus  Insu- 
linde  is  a  charming  and  finely  illustrated  work  of 
travel,  but  has  not  been  translated. 

Before  he  left  Jena  he  had,  with  his  charac- 
teristic urbanity  and  diligence,  given  personal 
replies  to  about  a  thousand  letters  he  had  received 
apropos  of  his  Biddle  of  the  Universe.     The  episto- 


THE    CROWNING    YEARS  309 

lary  flood  rose  higher  than  ever  on  his  return.  The 
struggle  had  spread  to  England  and  France.  He 
had  returned  to  a  cauldron  of  controversy.  He 
quietly  resumed  his  teaching  at  the  university  and 
attacked  his  still  formidable  literary  programme. 
Day  after  day  the  aged  scholar — he  was  now  in 
his  sixty-seventh  year — briskly  stepped  up  to  the 
podium  at  the  Zoological  Institute  and  delivered  his 
lectures,  drawing  his  objects  with  a  few  quick 
strokes  on  the  board  or  exhibiting  the  plates  pre- 
pared by  Giltsch.  He  noted  with  a  quiet  gleam  of 
satisfaction  that  a  few  ladies  now  ventured  into 
the  ^'Materialist"  circle.  The  new  century  had 
begun. 

In  1902  he  issued  the  cheap  edition  of  the 
Riddle^  of  which  180,000  copies  have  been  sold  in 
Germany,  with  a  reply  to  its  critics.  "  The  great 
struggle  for  truth,"  he  wrote  to  his  friend.  Dr. 
Breitenbach,  '^  grows  fiercer  and  fiercer,  the  more 
my  w^ork  is  attacked  by  the  clergy,  the  metaphysical 
schoolmen,  and  the  erudite  Philistines.  I  am 
continually  receiving  lively  and  sometimes  enthusi- 
astic letters  of  congratulation  from  all  parts  of  the 
world."  In  the  meantime  he  was  engaged  upon 
two  important  works,  which  he  published  in  1903. 

The  earlier  edition  of  the  Anthropogeny,  of  which 
Professor  Bolsche  has  written,  was  undergoing  a 
thorough  revision.  New  evidence  was  pouring  in 
every  year  in  support  of  his  sketch  of  the  genealogy 
of  humanity.  Dubois  had  discovered  what  is  now 
admitted  to  be  an  organism  midway  between  the 
highest    ape    and    the    earliest    prehistoric    man. 


310  HAECKEL 

Selenka  had  published  wonderful  studies  of  the 
anthropoid  apes.  Friendenthal  and  others  had 
shown  the  literal  blood-relationship  of  the  higher 
apes  and  man  by  a  series  of  beautiful  experiments. 
He  must  once  more  gather  together  the  enormous 
mass  of  facts,  and  marshal  them  with  his  old  com- 
mand. For  six  months  he  worked  incessantly  on 
the  new  edition.  A  hundred  pages  of  matter  were 
added  to  it,  a  hundred  fresh  illustrations.  Great 
and  exacting  as  the  task  would  have  been  for  a 
younger  man,  the  w^ork  appeared  in  1903  in  a 
form  that  silenced  criticism.  I  need  only  quote  a 
sentence  from  the  notice  of  it  that  was  published 
in  the  Daily  Telegraph  by  one  of  our  leading 
literary  critics,  when  it  was  issued  in  this  country. 
"It  is  a  grand  conception,  this  of  the  great 
physiologist,  that  every  man,  in  the  brief  term  of 
his  prenatal  development,  should  go  through  these 
successive  changes,  by  which  man  has,  in  countless 
ages,  been  evolved  from  the  primitive  germ- 
cell  ;  and  it  is  triumphantly  vindicated  in  The 
Evolution  of  Man.  It  is  impossible  to  do  justice 
in  words  to  the  patience,  the  labour,  the  specialised 
skill  and  industry  involved  in  the  preparation 
of  this  monumental  work."  And  one  has  only 
to  compare  this  latest  edition  with  the  previous 
one  to  see  at  a  glance  the  complete  transformation, 
and  realise  the  freshness  and  force  of  mind  of  the 
aged  biologist. 

In  the  face  of  such  a  work,  with  its  towering 
structure  of  proof  from  embryology,  comparative 
anatomy,  and  paleontology,  one  must  look  leniently 


THE    CROWNING    YEARS  311 

on  some  of  Haeckel's  references  to  fellow-anthro- 
pologists like  Virchow.  It  is  not  many  years  since 
the  great  pathologist  declared  emphatically  at  a 
scientific  congress  that  '*we  could  just  as  well 
conceive  man  to  have  descended  from  a  sheep  or 
an  elephant  as  from  an  ape."  When  a  leading 
anthropologist  could  say  such  things  in  1894,  a 
strain  is  laid  on  our  charity.  Darwin's  words, 
written  in  a  letter  to  Haeckel,  press  on  us  once 
more  :  "  Virchow's  conduct  is  shameful,  and  I  trust 
he  will  one  day  feel  the  shame  of  it."  Professor 
Rabl  has  lately  contended  that  his  deceased  father- 
in-law  (Virchow)  admitted  the  evolution  of  man  in 
private.  We  cannot  wonder  if  Haeckel  merely 
retorts  :  '^  So  much  the  more  shame  on  his  public 
utterances."  Such  things  must,  at  least,  be  borne 
in  mind  when  one  reads  Haeckel's  severe  judgment 
on  some  of  his  great  contemporaries. 

The  Evolution  of  Man  not  only  oSers  the  com- 
plete proof  of  its  thesis — a  proof  accepted  by  every 
prominent  biologist  in  England  and  by  many  pre- 
lates (such  as  the  Bishop  of  London  and  the  Dean 
of  Westminster) — but  affords  also  interesting  proof 
of  Haeckel's  artistic  gifts.  Some  of  the  best  plates 
in  the  work  are  executed  by  him.  But  in  the  same 
year,  1903,  he  gave  a  more  popular  evidence  of  it. 
In  detached  numbers  he  published  the  large  and 
beautiful  volume  of  his  Art-forms  in  Nature.  In 
this  work  he  depicts  with  remarkable  success 
hundreds  of  the  most  beautiful  forms  that  his  long 
study  of  marine  life  had  brought  before  him.  A 
fine  expression  of  the  man's  dual  nature,  the  work 


312  HAECKEL 

appeals  with  equal  force  to  the  aesthete  and  the 
scientist.  And  during  the  long  hours  that  he  was 
peering  into  his  microscope  and  sketching  the 
delicate  and  graceful  forms,  the  din  and  roar  of  the 
mighty  controversy  he  had  aroused  was  breaking 
in  with  every  post.  By  the  end  of  the  year  he  had 
received  more  than  5,000  letters  in  connection  with 
the  Riddle  of  the  Universe.  Scurrilous  letters  and 
idolatrous  letters,  sober  letters  and  fantastic  letters, 
flowed  upon  the  Zoological  Institute,  where  he 
worked  with  pen  and  pencil,  and  were  duly  read. 
He  merely  defended  himself  by  posting  to  each 
correspondent  a  printed  form  that  he  would  soon 
issue  a  new  work  in  which  the  further  questions 
would  be  answered.  He  had  given  his  life  to 
science  and  humanity,  and  would  not  withdraw  for 
the  well-earned  rest.  And  from  a  thousand  pulpits 
over  Europe  and  America  the  aged  and  self-sacri- 
ficing worker  was  being  denounced  and  caricatured 
to  audiences  who  had  not  the  remotest  knowledge 
of  his  aims  and  his  work.  A  friend  of  mine  heard 
a  minister  in  an  important  Glasgow  church  assure 
his  congregation  from  the  pulpit  that  *^Haeckel 
was  a  man  of  notoriously  licentious  life  ;  "  he  had 
heard  it  ^^from  a  friend  of  Haeckel's."  At  the 
very  time  when  Haeckel  was  buried  in  his  splendid 
artistic  work,  the  Christian  World  Pulpit  was 
issuing  a  sermon  in  which  Dr.  Horton  was  ex- 
plaining '^  the  personal  factor  "  in  Haeckel.  "  He 
is  an  atrophied  soul,  a  being  that  is  blind  on  the 
spiritual  side,"  the  popular  preacher  declared. 
From  the  turmoil  Haeckel  withdrew  once  more 


THE    CROWNING    YEARS  313 

to  his  beloved  Italy.  There  was  another  reason 
for  his  flight.  His  seventieth  birthday  was  ap- 
proaching. He  had  declared  at  the  banquet  given 
in  his  honour  on  the  occasion  of  his  sixtieth  birth- 
day, that  if  he  lived  for  the  seventieth  he  would 
**  bury  himself  in  some  dark  corner  of  the 
Thuringian  forest,  far  aw^ay  from  all  festivities.'* 
Strenuous  and  exacting  as  the  ten  years  had  been, 
he  now  found  himself  on  the  threshold  of  his 
eighth  decade  of  life.  His  wife,  also,  was  ailing, 
and  they  both  proceeded  to  the  Italian  Riviera 
at  the  beginning  of  the  winter.  Few  of  his 
friends  were  informed  where  he  was.  ''I  want," 
he  wrote  to  me,  "  to  pass  my  seventieth  birthday 
in  peace."  He  settled  at  Rapallo,  and  at  once 
commenced  his  favourite  fishing  for  the  tiny  in- 
habitants of  the  Mediterranean.  The  '^  cloistral 
quietness  "  of  the  little  town,  the  daily  prospect 
of  the  blue  Mediterranean,  ^*  the  solitary  walks 
in  the  wild  gorges  of  the  Ligurian  Apennines, 
and  the  uplifting  sight  of  their  forest-crowned 
mountain-altars"  restored  his  freshness  of  spirit. 
Once  more  a  vast  labour  lay  before  him.  He 
had  promised  a  work  that  would  answer  all 
biological  questions  addressed  to  him  in  the  5,000 
letters  of  his  correspondents.  He  had  all  the 
queries,  all  the  criticisms  of  his  views,  all  the 
latest  literature  of  the  subject,  to  digest  into  a 
compact  volume.  The  result  was  a  new  work  of 
557  pages.  The  Wonders  of  Life,  a  remarkable 
summary  of  his  zoological  and  botanical  know- 
ledge, with    excursions    into    psychology,  suicide, 


314  HAECKEL 

lunacy,  ethnography,  theology,  and  ethics.  Its 
twenty  solid  and  well-arranged  chapters  were 
written  in  four  months. 

^*  Promptly  at  5,"  he  wrote  in  December,  ^'  I 
am  awakened  by  the  bells  of  the  church  hard 
by.  I  write  continuously  until  12.  After  a  frugal 
lunch  and  a  short  rest,  the  afternoon  is  devoted 
to  a  walk  or  to  water-colour  sketches.  The  longer 
days  allow  me  to  sit  and  paint  in  the  open  air 
until  five.  Our  quiet  evenings,  from  5  to  10,  are 
spent  in  reading  and  in  writing  letters.  The 
interruption  for  dinner,  from  7  to  8,  gives  us  an 
opportunity  to  exchange  jokes  over  our  ^  cloistral 
life.' "  Thus  the  veteran  naturalist,  of  '^  notori- 
ously licentious  life  "  (the  words  of  the  Glasgow 
preacher  were  spoken  at  this  very  period),  ap- 
proached his  eighth  decade  of  life — of  work. 

He  remained  at  Kapallo  until  the  birthday  had 
passed,  but  his  address  had  meantime  become 
widely  known,  and  the  miniature  postal  arrange- 
ments at  Kapallo  were  severely  taxed.  Letters^ 
telegrams,  flowers,  and  other  gifts — mostly  spon- 
taneous expressions  of  gratitude  from  '^  unknown 
readers  of  the  Biddle  of  the  Universe  " — reminded 
him  of  the  larger  world  that  now  appreciated 
him.  A  still  larger  number  of  letters  and  gifts 
reached  Jena  from  all  parts  of  the  world. 
Hundreds  of  German  journals  and  periodicals 
devoted  long  and  generous  articles  to  the  dis- 
tinguished worker,  and  little  festive  commemora- 
tions were  held  at  many  of  the  universities.  At 
Zurich,  Professor   Conrad    Keller    and    Professor 


THE    CROWNING    YEARS  315 

Arnold  Lang  delivered  speeches  which  have  since 
been  published.  Jena  sent  a  deputation  consisting 
of  a  number  of  its  professors  to  visit  the  hero  in 
person  at  Rapallo.  Reflecting  on  these  remarkable 
demonstrations  and  the  extraordinary  correspon- 
dence that  continually  reaches  Haeckel,  one 
is  disposed  to  repeat  of  him  the  phrase  applied  to  a 
great  heretical  teacher  of  the  Middle  Ages,  Peter 
Abelard :  **  Never  was  man  so  loved — and  so 
hated." 

A  feature  of  the  commemoration  that  peculiarly 
gratified  him  was  the  special  festive  number  of  the 
German  students'  lively  periodical,  Jugencl^  pub- 
lished at  Munich.  On  February  16th  it  appeared 
as  a  ''Haeckel  number,"  full  of  sprightly  anecdote 
and  generous  appreciation,  and  bearing  on  its 
cover  a  striking  reproduction  in  colour  of  the 
Lenbach  portrait.  His  letter  of  thanks  to  the 
journal  shows  that  the  repose  and  the  beauty  of 
Italy,  and  the  outburst  of  affection  his  birthday 
has  provoked,  have  set  him  perfectly  atune  to  life 
once  more.  "Ah  !  Prithee  stay,  thou  art  so  fair," 
he  almost  says  in  the  Goethe  phrase,  as  he  ''hails 
the  moment  fleeing."  He  goes  on  to  deprecate  the 
effort  to  make  "  a  learned  man  "  of  him.  "  That, 
alas,  I  am  not.  We  have  in  Germany  many 
professors  and  teachers  who  are  more  learned,  and 
have  read  far  more  books  than  your  poor  Jena 
schoolmaster.  But  from  my  earliest  youth,  since 
I  tore  up  flowers  and  admired  butterflies  in  my 
fourth  year,  I  have  yielded  to  the  inclination  of  my 
heart   and   studied   incessantly  one  great  book — 


316  HAECKEL 

Nature.  This  greatest  of  all  books  has  taught 
me  to  know  the  true  God,  the  God  of  Spinoza  and 
Goethe.  Then  as  physician  I  saw  human  life  in 
all  its  heights  and  depths,  and  in  my  many  travels 
through  half  the  globe  I  learned  the  inexhaustible 
splendour  of  the  earth.  And  I  have  honestly  tried 
with  all  my  modest  powers,  to  reproduce  with  pen 
and  pencil  a  part  of  what  I  saw,  and  reveal  it  to 
my  fellows.  I  have  had  to  fight  many  a  hard  fight, 
and  in  my  hatred  of  lies  and  hypocrisy  and 
decaying  traditions  I  have  at  times  struck  a  sharp 
note.  But  I  trust,  dear  Youth,  that  thou  wilt  not 
judge  all  that  harshly  in  so  old  and  storm-tried, 
a  warrior,  and  that  thou  wilt  go  on  to  stand  with 
me,  shoulder  to  shoulder,  fighting  for  the  spiritual 
progress  of  humanity,  fighting  in  the  cause  of  the 
great  trinity  of  the  true,  the  good,  and  the 
beautiful." 

The  work  he  had  composed  in  four  months  at 
Eapallo,  The  Wonders  of  Life,  was  issued  on  his 
return.  It  has  not  had  the  stormy  success  of  its 
predecessor.  The  fact  is  instructive.  This  work 
contains  a  fuller  proof  of  the  chief  scientific 
positions  of  the  Biddle.  It  is,  therefore,  more 
technical  and  more  difiicult  to  read.  Amongst 
other  matters,  it  contains  a  fine  summary  of 
those  speculations  on  the  mathematical  forms  of 
organisms  and  the  idea  of  individuality  of  which 
Professor  Bolsche  has  written  so  appreciatively. 
It  must  be  recognised  that  Haeckel  has  fulfilled  a 
duty  in  thus  providing  the  general  reader  with 
a   fuller   biological   proof   of  his  theses.     If   that 


THE    CROWNING    YEARS  317 

estimable  person,  the  general  reader,  betrays  less 
eagerness  for  the  fuller  proof,  we  must  remember 
that  for  ages  he  has  been  taught  to  disregard  such 
a  thing  as  *' proof."  It  is  the  general  reader  that 
makes  Haeckel  didactic.  It  is  Haeckel's  opponents 
who  made  the  general  reader.  However,  the  great 
bulk  of  The  Wonders  of  Lifeis  true  to  its  title.  It 
is  an  intensely  interesting  summary  of  biological 
facts.  For  the  rest,  if  it  contains  speculations 
that  run  beyond  the  evidence  (though  based  on  it) 
who  is  better  qualified  to  open  up  these  new  paths 
than  men  with  the  enormous  range  of  knowledge 
that  Haeckel  has?  "I  agree  with  you,"  one  of 
the  first  biologists  in  England  wrote  to  me  recently, 
^'that  Haeckel  is  one  of  the  first  living  biologists. 
There  are  not  any  others  who  have  the  same 
wide  knowledge  and  experience  and  consequent 
^  point  of  view.'  He  knows  his  zoology,  botany, 
physiology,  and  pathology,  also  geology,  and  has 
travelled,  and  has  a  keen  interest  in  and  knowledge 
of  no  small  degree  of  philology,  archaeology,  and 
ethnography." 

Haeckel  was  in  Italy  once  more  in  the  autumn 
of  1904,  and  although  he  did  little  quiet  travel  and 
no  fishing  for  radiolaria  it  is  probable  that  no  visit 
to  the  country  ever  afforded  him  such  satisfaction. 
One  great  shadow  lay  over  the  beautiful  land  and 
its  genial  race  whenever  he  visited  it — a  gross  and 
almost  impenetrable  superstition.  Turn  off  the 
great  routes  of  Italy,  with  their  splendid  cathedrals, 
and  visit  the  small  towns  and  villages.  See  the 
scum  of  Naples  tearing  the  clothes  from  each  other 


318  HAECKEL 

to  kiss  the  *^  blood  of  St.  Januarius."  Peer  into  the 
abysses  of  vice  and  grossness  that  are  covered 
effectually  by  this  formal  and  unlovely  practice  of 
religion.  Haeckel  had  seen  all  that  with  sad  eyes 
for  many  a  year. 

In  1904  a  little  institution  that  called  itself 
^*  The  International  Congress  of  Freethinkers" 
announced  that  it  would  hold  its  annual  gathering 
at  Eome.  The  pope  —  the  new  pope,  friend  of 
the  royal  house — lodged  a  feeling  protest  with 
the  authorities.  The  priests  poured  inflammatory 
rhetoric  over  their  people  until  violence  seemed 
inevitable.  The  Italian  Government's  only  reply 
was  to  grant  the  heretics  all  the  privileges  that 
were  ever  given  to  the  great  Catholic  pilgrimages : 
to  put  at  their  disposal  its  finest  institution,  the 
Collegio  Komano,  and  to  send  its  Minister  of 
Public  Instruction  to  open  the  Congress.  Veteran 
warriors  such  as  Haeckel,  Berthelot,  Salmeron, 
Sergi,  Denis,  and  Bjornsen,  gladly  announced 
their  adhesion.  Paris  sent  a  thousand  delegates ; 
Spain  nearly  a  thousand;  Italy  her  thousands. 
Whole  municipalities  in  Italy  and  France  (even 
that  of  Paris)  took  part.  The  Latin  world  was 
aflame  with  rebellion.  We  met,  seven  thousand 
strong,  in  the  heart  of  Eome,  and  Eome — the  jade 
— smiled  prettily  as  we  marched  up  the  Via  Venti 
Settembre,  as  it  had  smiled  once  on  processions  of 
Cybele,  and  then  on  processions  of  Catholics. 

Haeckel  was  greeted  with  a  wild  demonstration 
as  he  stepped  on  to  the  platform  in  the  great 
Cortile  of  the  College.     Straight  and  proud,  white 


THE    CROWNING    YEARS  319 

with  age  but  pink  with  more  than  the  freshness  of 
a  young  man,  he  adjured  them  in  futile  German, 
in  his  thin,  inaudible  voice,  to  form  themselves  into 
a  new  Church,  the  great  Association  of  Monists. 
Few  heard  and  less  understood  him,  but  his  name 
was  on  every  heart  and  his  reception  superb. 

A  week  afterwards  I  picked  up  a  London  journal 
in  an  Italian  hotel,  and  read — as  hundreds  of 
thousands  had  done — that  a  miserable  Freethought 
conference  had  been  held  at  Rome  :  that  its  rowdy 
proceedings  had  disgusted  the  scholars  who  had,  in 
a  misguided  moment,  lent  their  names  to  it.  Thus 
are  we  informed  at  times.  I  remembered  Sergi's 
enthusiastic  comments  at  the  close.  ''  E  magnifico, 
e  magnifico,"  was  all  he  could  gasp.  I  remembered 
Haeckel's  exultation  as  we  walked  home  to  his 
x\lbergo  Santa  Chiara,  and  Berthelot's  deep  joy. 
The  same  scholars,  except  Bjornsen,  took  part  in 
the  Congress  at  Paris,  in  1905,  when  100,000  of  us 
were  nobly  received  by  the  Conseil  Municipal. 
But  Haeckel  was  too  unwell  to  come.  Nature  has 
laid  her  hand  on  him  at  length,  and  bade  him 
hang  his  weapons  on  the  wall.  He  can  but  hope 
to  remain  a  passive  spectator  for  a  few  years  more 
of  that  vast  stirring  of  the  Latin  peoples  which  he 
has  so  much  contributed  to  bring  about. 

His  last  active  effort  was  the  delivery  of  three 
lectures  at  Berlin  in  the  spring  of  1905.  He  has 
always  avoided  public  lectures  as  much  as  possible. 
His  poor  voice  and  comparative  nervousness  make 
the  work  unattractive.  A  severe  attack  of  influenza 
sapped  his  strength  in  the  winter  of  1905,  and  he 


320  HAECKEL 

has  been  unable  to  eliminate  its  unpleasant  conse- 
quences. But  the  opportunity  of  enforcing  his 
gospel  in  the  capital  of  the  Empire,  where  the 
Virchows  and  Du  Bois-Reymonds  had  ruled  so 
long  made  him  deaf  to  the  counsels  of  prudence. 
He  chose  as  his  theme  the  controversy  in  regard 
to  evolution,  and  gave  three  spirited  lectures.  The 
changed  world  came  home  to  him  vividly  enough. 
A  vast  and  enthusiastic  gathering  of  admirers  in 
one  of  the  finest  halls  in  Berlin :  outside,  at  the 
very  door,  his  clerical  opponents  distributing  hand- 
bills that  offered  a  choice  selection  of  the  most 
venemous  attacks  on  his  person  and  work.  The 
lectures  are  now  available  in  English  under  the 
title  of  Last  Words  on  Evolution, 

The  present  state  of  Haeckel's  health  forbids 
him  to  hope  that  he  will  do  any  more  active  work. 
As  I  write,  he  lies  in  his  villa,  in  *'  Haeckel  Street," 
overlooking  the  handsome  Zoological  Institute, 
which  he  raised,  and  the  httle  university  town 
that  he  has  made  know^n  to  the  world.  Beyond 
the  graceful  hills  that  cradle  it,  he  sees  the  dark 
waves  tossing  that  he  has  worked  so  hard  to  set  in 
motion.  In  Germany  the  alliance  of  the  Emperor 
with  the  Catholics  saddens  him,  but — the  Jesuits 
are  accepting  evolution,  over  the  fresh  grave  of 
Virchow.  Abroad  his  ideals,  even  his  ideas,  are 
making  triumphant  progress.  He  thinks  of  the 
vast  changes  that  have  taken  place  since  he  stood 
out,  almost  alone,  reckless  of  all  but  honour  and 
truth,  at  the  Stettin  Congress  in  1863.  "Das  Leben 
ist  schon,"  he  still  repeats.     What  will  men  say  of 


THE    CROWNING    YEARS  321 

liivi  when  the  lines  of  history  draw  in,  and  the 
critic  will  have  the  proper  perspective  ?  I  believe 
no  great  worker  ever  thought  less  about  it. 
Through  inexorable  labour,  through  constant  sacri- 
fice, through  storms  of  painful  obloquy,  he  has  lived 
his  ideals,  if  he  has  made  mistakes — been  mortal. 
Those  ideals  are  an  enduring  contribution  to  the 
good.  The  first,  the  motto  of  his  young  days, 
w^as  Iini:>avidi  j^^^ogreclimnur — *'Let  us  march  on 
fearlessly."  The  second,  the  motto  of  his  later 
years,  was:  "The  good,  the  true,  and  the  beautiful, 
are  the  ideals,  yea  the  gods,  of  our  Monistic 
philosophy." 


21 


Bibliography 


-•o*- 


The  following  is  a  list  of   the  works  by  Professor   Haeckel 
that  have  been  translated  into  English  : — 

"The  History  of  Creation."  Translation  (in  two  vols., 
edited  by  E.  Ray-Lankester)  of  the  NatiirlicJie  ScJiopfungs- 
geschichte.     1876.     [4th  edition,  1892.] 

"Freedom  in  Science  and  Teaching."  Translation  (with 
preface  by  T.  H.  Huxley)  of  the  Freie  Wissetischaft  wid  Freie 
Lehre.     1879. 

"  Report  on  the  Deep-sea  Medusae  dredged  by  H.M.S. 
Challenger,'*  Zoology  series,  vol.  iv.  [330  pp.  and  2  plates.] 
1882. 

"The  Pedigree  of  Man."  Translation  (by  E.  B.  Aveling) 
of  the  Gesammelte  Popiddre  Vortrage.     1883. 

"A  Visit  to  Ceylon."  Translation  (by  Clara  Bell)  of  the 
Lidische  Beisebriefe.     1883. 

"Report  on  the  Radiolaria  collected  by  H.M.S.  ChalletigerJ" 
Zoology  series,  vol.  xviii.  [2,000  pp.  4to  and  140  plates.]  1887. 

"Report  on  the  Siphonophorae  collected  by  H.M.S.  Clml' 
lenger."  Zoology  series,  vol.  xxviii.  [380  pp.  4to  and  50 
plates.]     1888. 

"  Report  on  the  Deep-sea  Keratosa  collected  by  H.M.S. 
Challenger."  Zoology  series,  vol.  xxxii.  [92  pp.  and  8 
plates.]     1889. 

323 


324  BIBLIOGRAPHY 

"  Planktonic-studies."  Translation  (by  S.  W.  Field)  of 
Plankto7i-stiulicn.     1891. 

"The  Confession  of  Faith  of  a  Man  of  Science."  Translation 
(by  J.  Gilchrist)  of  Monismus.     1894. 

"  The  Last  Link."  Translation  (by  Dr.  Gadow)  of  the 
Cambridge  Lecture  on  Evolution.     1898. 

•*  The  Biddle  of  the  Universe."  Translation  (by  J.  McCabe) 
of  Die  Weltmthsel.     1901.     [6th  edition,  1905.] 

"The  Wonders  of  Life."  Translation  (by  J.  McCabe)  of 
Die  Lebensiutmder.    1904. 

"The  Evolution  of  Man."  Translation  (by  J.  McCabe)  of 
the  5th  edition  of  the  Anthrojpogenie.  [905  pp.,  512  illus- 
trations, and  30  plates.]     1905. 

'*  Last  Words  on  Evolution."  Translation  (by  J.  McCabe)  of 
Der  Kami^f  um  den  EnUcickelmigs-Gedan'ken.     1906. 


COMPLETE    LIST    OF    PROF.    HAECKEL'S    WORKS 

(exclusive  of  articles  in  scientific  periodicals,  etc.) 

"  De  telis  quibusdam  Astaci  fluviatilis."    Dissertatio  inaugu- 
ralis  histologica.     [48  pp.  and  2  plates.]     1857. 

"  De   rhizopodum   finibus   et  ordinibus."     Diss,   pro  venia 
legendi  impetranda.     1861. 

•'Die  Radiolarien  (Bhizopoda  radiaria)."     [Vol.  i.,  572  pp. 
fol. ;  vol  ii.,  35  plates.]     1862. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY  325 

"Beitrage  zur  Naturgeschichte  der  Hydromedusen.  Die 
Familie  der  Riisselquallen  (Mediiscs  GeryonidcB)."  [204  pp. 
and  6  plates.]      1865. 

"  Generelle  Morphologie  der  Organismen."  [Vol.  i,  xxxii 
and  574  pp.  and  2  plates;  vol.  ii.,  clx  and  462  pp.  and  8 
plates.]     1866. 

"Natiirliche  Schopfungsgeschichte."  [568  pp.  and  9  plates.] 
1868.     [10th  edition,  1902.] 

*'  Uber  die  Entstehung  und  den  Stammbaum  des  Menschen- 
geschlechts."     1868. 

"  Zur  Entwickelungsgesohichte  der  Siphonophoren." 
Crowned  by  the  Utrecht  Society  of  Art  and  Science.  [124  pp. 
4to  and  14  plates.]     1869. 

"  Uber  Arbeitstheilung  in  Natur  und  Menschenleben." 
1869. 

"Das  Leben  in  den  grossten  Meerestiefen."     1870. 

"  Biologische  Studien."     [184  pp.  and  6  plates.]     1870. 

"Die  Kalkschwamme  (Calcispongice)."  [Vol.  i.,  xvi  and  484 
pp. ;  vol  ii.,  418  pp. ;  vol.  iii.,  60  plates.]     1872. 

"  Anthropogenie,  oder  Entwickelungsgesohichte  des  Men- 
schen."  [xviii  and  732  pp.,  12  plates,  and  210  woodcuts.] 
1874. 

"  Arabische  Korallen."     1875. 

"  Die  Perigenesis  der  Plastidule  oder  die  Wellenzengung  der 
Lebenstheilchen."     1876. 

"  Studien  zur  Gastraeatheorie."  [270  pp.  and  14  plates.] 
1877. 

"  Die  heutige  Entwickelungslehrc  im  Verhaltnisse  zur 
Gesammtwissenschaft."     1877. 

"  Freie  Wissenschaft  und  Freie  Lehre."     [106  pp.]     1878 


326  BIBLIOGRAPHY 

"  Das  Protistenreich."     [104  pp.,  58  woodcuts.]     1878. 

"  Gesammelte    populare    Vortriige    aus    dem    Gebiete    der 
Entwickelungslehre."      [181  pp.,  50  woodcuts.]     1878. 

"  Das  System  der  Medusen."     [xxx  and  672  pp.  and  40 
plates.]     1879. 

"  Gesammelte  populare  Vortriige."    Vol.  ii.    [164  pp.  and  30 
woodcuts.]     1879. 

**Das  System  der  Acraspeden."      [312  pp.  and  20  plates.] 
1880. 

"  Metagenesis  und  Hypogenesis  von  Aiirelia  atcrita.     [36  pp. 
and  2  plates.]     1881. 

**  Die  Tiefsee-Medusen  der  Challenger-Eeise  und  der  Organ- 
ismus  der  Medusen."     [205  pp.  and  32  plates.]     1881. 

"  Indische  Reisebriefe."     [380  pp.]     1882. 

"Die  Naturanschauung  von  Darwin,  Goethe,  und  Lamarck." 
1882. 

"Grundriss  einer  allgemeiner  Naturgeschichte  der  Radio- 
larien."     [248  pp.  4to  and  64  plates.]     1887. 

"Die   Acantharien  oder  actipyleen  Radiolarien."     [32  pp. 
and  12  plates.]     1888. 

"Die  Phaeodarien  oder  cannopyleen  Radiolarien."     [32  pp. 
and  30  plates].     1888. 

"Plankton-studien."     [112  pp.]     1890. 

"Der  Monismus  als  Band  zwischen  Religion  und  Wissen- 
schaffc."     1892. 

"  Zur  Phylogenie  der  Australischen  Fauna."     1893. 

"  Die    Systematische    Phylogenie."      [3   vols.,   1,800  pp.] 
1894. 

"Die  Amphorideen  und  Cystoideen."     1896. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY  327 

"  Ueber  unsere  gegenwartige  Kenntniss  vom  Ursprung  des 
Menschen."     1898. 

"  Die  Weltrathsel."     [473  pp.]     1899. 

"  Aus  Insulinde."     [260  pp.,  80  illustrations.]      1901. 

"Anthropogenie."     [5th  edition,  991  pp.,  30  plates,  and  512 
illustrations.]     1903. 

"  Kunstformen  der  Natur."      [100  large  coloured  plates  and 
text.]     1904. 

"  Die  Lebenswunder."     [567  pp.]     1904. 

"Ernst  Haeckel's  Wanderbilder."     [Series  of  prints  of  his 
oil-paintings  and  water-colour  landscapes.]      1905. 

"  Der  Kampf  um  den  Entwickelungs-Gedanken."     [112  pp. 
and  4  plates.]     1905. 


Ind 


ex 


-«o»- 


Adam's  Peak,  Haeckel  on,  244 
Adaptations,  embryonic,  228 
Adaptation  to  environment,  119 
Adickes,  Professor,  304 
Adriatic,  visit  to  the,  257 
iEsthetic  element  in  Haeckel,  83 
Affinities  of  animals,  233 
Agassiz,  229 

,,       on  creation,  128 
Alexander,  Karl,   Grand  Duke   of 

Weimar,  254 
Algeciras,  Haeckel  at,  252 
Algiers,  Haeckel  arrested  in,  259 
Allmers,  Hermann,  85 
Alpine  salamander,  the,  221 
America,  the  discovery  of,  20 
Amphioxus,  the,  274 
Amiilioridea  and   Cystoidea,  the, 

291 
Angelo,  Michael,  paintmgs  of,  15 
Anthropogenie,  the,  279,  309 
Anthropological  critics,  Haeckel's, 

283 
Arabia,  coral-fishing  in,  257 
Archeopteryx,  the,  167,  223 
Arctic  hare,  the,  119 
Art  and  mathematics,  216 
Art-forms  in  Nature,  the,  26,  293, 


311 


Artificial  selection,  117 
Artistic  gifts  of  Haeckel,  83-4 
Asia  Minor,  travels  in,  257 
Aspects  of  Nature,  46 
Association  of  Monists,  319 
Athletic  festival,  Haeckel   at  the 

173 
Atom,  the,  212 
Aus  Insulinde,  308 


B 

Bacilli,  the,  206 

Bacteria,  the,  180 

Basedow,  32 

Belligemma,  258 

Berlin,  Haeckel's  criticism  of,  30 

,,     ,  lectures  at,  in  1905,  319 
Berthelot,  318,  319 
Bjornsen,  B.,  318,  319 
Bible,  the,  126 
Biogenetic  law,  the,  219 
Bird,  evolution  of  the,  223 
Birth  of  Haeckel,  29 
Bh-thday,  celebration  of  Haeckel's 

sixtieth,  297 
Birthday,  celebration  of  Haeckel's 

seventieth,  314 
Birthdays,  real   determination  of, 

1C2 


329 


330 


INDEX 


Bismarck,  esteem  of,  for  Haeckel, 

298 
Bleek,  Professor,  37 
Bose,  Countess,  liberality  of,  255 
Botany,  Haeckel's  early  love  of,  36 
Braun,  Alexander,  52 
Bressa  prize,  the,  300 
Bronn,  128 
Bruno,  Giordano,  16 
Butterfly,  development  of  the,  227 


Calcispongiae,  the,  272 

,,  ,  embryology   of   the, 

273 
Calumniation  of  Haeckel,  266,  268 
Cambridge,  Haeckel  at,  300 
Canaries,  voyage  to  the,  240 
Catastrophic  theory,  the,  108 
CathoUcism  in  Germany.  301 

,,      ,  lower  features  of,  134 
Cell,  discovery  of  the,  56,  65 

„  ,  nature  of  the,  178 
Cell-soul,  the,  161 
Cell-souls  and  Soul-cells,  286 
Cell-state,  the,  57 

„       ,  man  as  a,  160 
Cell-theory,  the,   and   Darwinism, 

178 
Cenogenesis,  231 
Ceylon,  Haeckel's  life  in,  33 

,,     ,  visit  to,  258 
Challenger  expedition,  the,  287 
Chromacea,  the,  180 
Chrysaora,  176 
Classical  studies,  35 
Classification,  Haeckel's  refoi*m  of, 

233-4 
Colombo,  Haeckel  at,  258 
Columbus,  16,  20 
Compromise,    Virchow   advocates, 

163-171 
Congresses,  founding  of  scientific, 

144 


»5 


»J 


15 


Consciousness,  Virchow  on,  163 
Copernicus,  16 
Corals  of  Arabia,  the,  257 
Craw-fish,  study  of  the,  77 
Creation,  difiQculties  of,  98 
Crystal,  Ufe  of  the,  203 
Cuvier's  theory  of  creation,  107 
Cycmea,  176 

D 

Dalmatia,  visit  to,  257 
Darwin's     condemnation    of    Vir- 
chow, 311 
Darwin,  Haeckel's  intercourse  with, 
241 
in  South  America,  103 
on  botany,  39 
,  physiognomy  of,  146 
,  reasoning  of,  117-20 
,  theism  of,  124 
Darwinism  accepted  by  Haeckel, 

133 
"  Dead  "  matter,  203 
Death  of  Haeckel's  wife,  184 
Deep-sea  Medusa;,  the,  287 
Degree,  dissertation  for  the,  77 
Dennert,  Prof.,  304 
Descent  of  Man,  the,  243 
Design,  abandomnent  of,  169 
Desmonema  Annasethe  the,  186 
Dissection,  55 

Division  of  labour,  essay  on,  249 
Doctorates  held  by  Haeckel,  24 
Dogmatism,   alleged,   of  Haeckel, 

23,  218,  303 
Dohrn,  Anton,  59 
Down,  Haeckel's  visit  to,  241 
Dubois,  Eugen,  167,  309 
Du  Bois-Rejmond,  E.,  135 

E 

Education,  Haeckel  on  elementary, 

34 
Egypt,  visit  to,  257 


INDEX 


331 


»» 


Ehrenberg,  78,  96 
Elective  Affinities,  the,  45 
Embryonic    diagrams,    Haeckel's 

early,  268 
Embryology,  57 

and  evolution,  170 
in  Haeckel's   works, 
268,  280 
Embryology  of  the  SijjhonophorcE, 

the,  248 
Emotional  character  of  Haeckel, 

186-7 
Engelmann,  173 
Erica   cinerea,    search    for    the, 

37 
"  Ernst  Haeckel  Street,"  43 
Essay,  Haeckel's  first,  71 
Essays  on  tlie  Theory  of  Evolution, 

287 
Evolution,  internal  law  of,  130 

„        of  species,  114 
Evolution  of  Man,  the,  279,  310 
"  Exact "  scientists,  131,  132,  164 
Extinct  species,  107 
Extinction  of  species,  112,  119 

F 

Family  of  Haeckel,  the,  258 

Filippo  de  Filippi,  76 

Fish,  nature  of  the,  219 

FitzRoy,  Captain,  103 

Flora   Hallensis,  contribution  to 

the,  37 
Fol,  245 

For  Darwin,  230 
Force  and  Matter,  201 
Forms,  science  of,  190-2 
Form-unities,  207 
Free  Science  and  Free  Teaching, 

285 
Freedom  of  research,  75,  156 
French  rule  in  Prussia,  25 
Freytag,  Gustav,  21,  29 
Friedenthal,  310 


Frog,  the,  219 
,,     ,  evolution  of  the,  222 

G 

Galapagos  Islands,  Darwin  in  the, 

116 
Galileo,  16 
Gandtner,  37 
Gastraea,  the,  276 
Gastraea-theory,  the,  278 
Gastrula,  the,  277 
•Gegenbaur,  Karl,  62-4 
Genealogical  tree  of  organisms,  149, 

152,  226 
Generelle  Morphologic,  the,  188 
Genius,  102 
Geology,  108 

,,        and  evolution,  167 
Geryonidce,  the,  177 
Gill-slits    in   the  human  embryo, 

269 
Giltsch,  Adolph,  289 
Glyptodon,  the,  113 
Gneisenau,  29 

God,  Haeckel's  conception  of,  133-5, 
236 
„   ,  the  new  conception  of,  19 
Goethe,  17 

,,      ,  evolution  in  works  of,  238 
,,        on  morphology,  190-1 
Goethe's  influence  on  Haeckel,  41-6 
Gramzow,  Otto,  on  Haeckel,  295 
Greece,  visit  to,  257 
Greeff,  Bichard,  244 
Greek,  Haeckel's  knowledge  of,  36 
Green  Henry,  45 
Gryptotherium,  the,  113 
Gude,  Karl,  37 

H 

Haeckel  abandons  theology,  75,  133 
,,      ,  seethetic  element  in,  83, 

185 
,,     ,  ancestry  of,  21 


332 


INDEX 


»» 


Haeckel  and  Darwin,  127,  241 
Gegenbaur,  62 
Miiller,  69 
Virchow,  163,  284 
as  a  physician,  80 
,,     traveller,  256 
at  Down,  241 
at  Stettin,  146 
,  bii'th  of,  29 
,  boyhood  of,  31-3 
,  early  education  of,  34-50 
embraces  evolution,  137 
,  family  of,  253 
,  first  marriage  of,  100 

goes  to  Jena,  100 
,  honours    awarded   to,    10, 
298,  300 
in  Heligoland,  69 
in  Italy,  82 
in  the  Canaries,  240 
,  medical  training  of,  76 
,  parents  of,  28 
,  personal  charm  of,  146 
,  political  views  of,  301 
,  recent  popularity  of,  295 
reconstructs  zoology,  181 
,  religion  of,  230 
,  second  marriage  of,  253 
,  university  training  of,  54 
Haeckel,  Councillor  Karl,  29,  32 

„     ,  Walter,  83 
HaeckeVs  Critics  Answered,  307 
Heine,  21 

HeUgoland,  the  first  journey  to,  69 
Heliosphaera,  the,  141 
Heliozoa,  the,  258 
Heredity,  a  theory  of,  284 
Hertwig,  Oscar,  257 
Hertwig,  R.,  189 
Histology,  56 

History  of  Creation,  the,  262 
History,  unity  of,  44 
Holy  Land,  travels  in  the,  259 
Horton,  Dr.,  on  Haeckel,  312 


Hiiffer,  Hermann,  21 
Humboldt,  46,  144 

,,  foundation,  the,  31 

Huschke,  Agnes,  253 
Huxley  on  the  origin  of  man,  180 


Illustrations,       charges       against 
Haeckel's,  267-8 

Imagination  in  science,  200 

IndependencejHaeckel's  early  sense 
of,  31 

Indische  Beisebriefe,  the,  261 

Individuality,  nature  of,  207,  211 
,,  ,  stages  of,  209 

Infusoria,  the,  78 

International    Congress    of    Free- 
thinkers, the,  316 

Irene,  176 

Ischia,  journey  to,  87 

Italy,  appreciation  of  Haeckel  in 
299 
„    ,  Haeckel's  first  visit  to,  82 


Java,  ape-man  of,  167,  308 

„    ,  voyage  to,  260,  308 
Jena,  42 

,,  ,  Haeckel's  first  visit  to,  50 
Jugend,  Haeckel  number  of,  315 
Jump,  Haeckel's  record,  173 
Jurist,  Haeckel  as  a,  22 

K 

Keferstein,  Professor,  on  Dar- 
winism, 148 

Keller,  Gottfried,  45 

Kepler,  16 

Kolliker,  Albert,  56 

Konigsberg,  Congress  at,  99 

Kopf,  Professor,  bust  of  Haeckel  by, 
299 

Kiikenthal,  43 

KuUurJiamjjf,  the,  284 


INDEX 


333 


Lamprey,  the,  181 
Lancelet,  the,  181 
Lang,  Professor  A.,  on  Haeckel,  300 
Lange,  F.  A.,  154 
Language,  evolution  of,  150 
Lanzarote,  Haeckel  at,  245 
Last  Link,  the,  300 
Last  Words  on  Evolution,  the,  320 
Latin,  Haeckel's  knowledge  of,  36 
"  Law  of  development,"  129 
Law,  training  for  the,  23 
Lawyers  in  Haeckel's  family,  22 
Lemur,  the,  181 
Leydig,  Frantz,  56 
Lichtenstein,  Professor,  71 
Life,  earliest  forms  of,  151 

,,  ,  origin  of,  124 
Linne,  classification  of,  105 
Literary  production  of  Haeckel,  299 
Lizard,  evolution  of  the,  222 
Lizzia  Elizabethce,  the,  185 
Lloyd-Morgan,  Professor,  307 
Lodge,  Sir  Oliver,  307 
Loofs,  Professor,  305 
Love  of  nature  in  Haeckel,  31 
Lyell's  reform  of  geology,  109 


Macrauchenia,  the,  112 
Mammoth,  the,  106 
Man,  creation  of,  126 

„    ,  evolution  of,  180-1,  279 
Man's  genealogical  tree,  181 
Marine  animals,  study  of,  60 
Marriage,  Haeckel's  first,  100 

,,  ,,        second,  253 

Mastodon,  the,  112 
Materialism  and  idealism,  83,  154 
Mathematical  types  of  form,  214 
Matter,  potentialities  of,  204 
Mechanical  embryology,  249 
Medical  studies  of  Haeckel,  72 
Medusae,  the,  174,  246 


Megatherium,  the,  106,  112 

Merseburg,  30 

Messina,  90 

Metaphysics,  Haeckel's  views  on, 

304 
Method,  analysis  of  scientific,  200 
Meyer,  Frau,  253 
Microscope,  beauty  in  the,  92 
Miklucho-Maclay,  245 
Mh'acles  in  modern  Italy,  134 
"  Missing  link,"  the,  308 
Mitrocoma  AnncB,  the,  185 
Moleschott,  83,  154 
Monera,  the,  179 
Monism,  73,  203,  217 
Monism  as  a  Connecting  Link,  the 

292 
Monograph  on  the   CalcispongicB, 

the,  272 
Monograph  on  the  Medusce,  the, 

185 
Monograph  on  the    Monera,  the, 

182 
Monograph  on  the  Baddolaria,  the, 

100,  138 
Monophyletic   theory  of  life,  the, 

158 
Morphology,  the  science  of,  190 

„  ,  history  of,  199 

Mosaic  story  of  creation,  105,  108 
Mottoes,  Haeckel's,  321 
Mouth,  the  primitive,  275 
jMiiller,  Fritz,  230 

,,     ,  Johannes,  65-8 
„  ,,        ,  death  of,  80 

Miiller-net,  the,  69 
Munich,  Haeckel  and  Virchow  at, 

157,  283 
Murray,  Sir  John,  259 

N 
Naples,  Haeckel  at,  87 
Natural  law,  relativity  of,  232 
,,        philosophy,  48 


334 


INDEX 


Natural  selection,  119-120 

Nature  and  God,  20 

Naturalist's    Voyage     round    the 

World,  46 
Nausicaa  phceacum,  the,  185 
Nineteenth  century,  work   of  the, 

18 
Nomenclature,  scientific,  185 
Nucleus,  the,  179 


Oken,  L.,  144 

„      on  embryonic  development, 
224 

Ontogeny,  231 

Optimism  of  early  Darwinians,  166 

Origin  and  Evolution  of  the  Sense- 
organs,  286 

Origin  of  Species,  the,  122 

Over-individuals,  247 

Ovi  di  mare,  93 

Ovum,  the,  268,  273 

,,   ,  discovery  of  the,  58 


Paleontology,  149 

Palingenesis,  231 

Pampas,  fossil  remains  in  the,  112 

Paris,    Freethought    Congress    at, 

319 
Pathology,  Virchow's  reform  of,  57 
Paulsen,  Professor,  304 
Peak  of  Teneriffe,  Haeckel  climbs 

the,  250 
Pelagic  sweepings,  70 
Pemmatodiscus  gastrulaceus,  the, 

277 
Persephone-impulse,        the,        in 

Haeckel,  256 
Philosophy  and  observation,  156 

,,  and  science,  202 

Philosophy,    Haeckel's    work     in, 

305 
Phylogeny,  231 


Physician,  Haeckel  as  a,  80 

,,       ,  qualities  of  the,  53 
Pithecanthropus,  the,  167,  308 
Plankton,  70 
Plankton-studies,  290 
Plant  or  animal,   priority  of  the 

205 
Plastidules,  284 
Political  views  of  Haeckel,  301 
Polyps,  175 

Popular  works,  why  written,  262 
Potsdam,  Haeckel's  birthplace,  30 
Private  teacher,  Haeckel  as,  100 
Profession,  choice  of  a,  53 
Professor    of      Zoology,     Haeckel 

appointed,  100 
Progressive  evolution,  168 
Promorphology,  215 
Protestant    religion,    character  of 

the,  134 
Protists,  the,  206 
Protistology,  206 
Puerto  del  Arrecise,  250 
Pupa,  the,  227 


Kabl,  Professor,  311 
Radiolaria,  the,  93,  289 

,  shells  of  the,  95 
,  system  of  the,  140 
Rapallo,  Haeckel  at,  313 
Realism  of  Haeckel,  304 
Beport  on  the  Deep-sea  Eeratosa, 

the,  290 
Beport  on  the  Badiolaria,  the,  289 
Biddle  of  the   Universe,  the,  22, 

291,  301-7 
Bitter,  Paul  von,  donation  of,  255, 

299 
Riviera,  marine  study  on  the,  76 
Rocks,  formation  of  the,  109 
Roederer,  25 
Romance   nations,  religion  of  the 

134 


ii 


>» 


INDEX 


335 


Rome,   Freethought   Congi'ess   at, 

316 
Eoux,  Professor,  249 
Russia,  travels  in,  259 

S 

Scandinavia,  visit  to,  257 

Schiller,  42,  43 

Schleiden,  M.  J.,  47 

Schleiermacher,  27-8 

Schmidt,  Dr.,  307 

School-days  at  Merseburg,  34 

Schopenhauer  on  Darwinism,  132 

Schwann,  Theodor,  65 

Scientific  method,  variations  of,  48 

Scilla  bifolia,  search  for  the,  51 

Scotland,  visit  to,  257,  259 

Sea-urchin,  fertilisation  of  the,  257 

Seebeck  refuses  Haeckel's  resigna- 
tion, 254 

Semon,  43 

Sergi,  Professor,  319 

Sethe,  Anna,  81,  100 
,,     ,  Bertha,  26 

,  Christian,  21,  22 
,  Christoph,  21,  25 

Siphonophores,  the,  246 

Social  Democrats,  the,  285,  301 

Soul,  unity  of  the,  161 

Spain,  Haeckel's  visit  to,  252 

Specialism  in  science,  48 

Species,    early   difficulties    about, 
37-8 
,,        idea  of  fixity  of,  105 

Sponge,  nature  of  a,  271 

Sponges,  Haeckel's  study  of  the, 
270 

Spontaneous  generation,  Haeckel's 
early  opposition  to,  77 

Spontaneous  generation,  possibility 
of,  136 

Stereometric  structures,  215 

Stephen,  Sir  Leshe,  307 

Stettin,  Congress  of,  145 


5> 


»> 


Stocks,  animal,  211 

Strauss,  83 

Struggle  for  life,  the,  119 

Studies  of  the  GastrcBa-theory,  the, 

277 
Sumatra,  Haeckel  in,  260 
Superstition  in  Italy,  315 
System  of  the  Medusce,  the,  287 
System  of  tlie  Si;phonqphorce,  the, 

249 
Systematic  Phylogeny,  the,  291 


Tadpole,  the,  220 

Teeth  in  yoimg  parrots,  223 

Teneriffe,  240 

Terminology  created  by  Haeckel, 

36 
Theological  critics  of  Haeckel,  298, 

305 
Theology,  Haeckel's  rejection  of, 

75-6 
Tiara,  176 
Tierra  del  Fuego,  103 
Tissues  of  the  Craiv-fish,  the,  77 
Tjibodas,  260 

Training,  early,  of  Haeckel,  32 
Transfoi-mism,  111 
Translations  of  Haeckel's  works, 

294 
"  Travel  Pictures,"  84 
Travels  of  Haeckel,  256 
Tree-frog,  the,  119 

U 

Unicellular  animals,  94,  98 
Unity  of  nature,  the,  235 
Unnucleated  organisms,  180 
Utrecht     Society     of      Art     and 
Science,  248 


Venus  of  Milo,  the,  191 
Vienna,  medical  studies  at,  80 


336 


INDEX 


?i 


>> 


}> 


Villefranche,  fishing  at,  76 

Virchow,  Eudolf,  56,  72 

at  Stettin,  153-171 
Haeckel's  conflict  with, 

74 
on  the  evolution  of  man, 
311 

Visit  to  Ceylon ,  the,  259 

Vital  force,  the,  135 

Vogt,  83,  154 

Volger,  Otto,  167 

W 

Wallace,  A.  K.,  and  Darwin,  123 
Weimar,  Grand  Duke  of,  254 


Wonders  of  Life,  the,  292,  313 
Works,  number  of  Haeckel's,  299 
Worm,  evolution  of  the,  276 
Wiirtzburg,  Haeckel  at,  54 

,,         ,  invitation  to  the  Uni- 
versity of,  253 

Z 

Zipangu,  20 

Zoological  Institute,  the,  42 
„  philosophy,  194 

„         Station  at  Naples,  59 

Zoology,     reconstruction     of,     by 
Haeckel,  24 
,  the  old  and  the  new,  60 


n 


TJXmN  BROTHERS,  LIMITED,   THE  GREBHAM  PRESS,   WOKINO  AND  LONDON. 


COLUMBIA  UNIVERSITY  LIBRARIES 

This  book  is  due  on  the  date  indicated  below,  or  at  the 
expiration  of  a  definite  period  after  the  date  of  borrowing, 
as  provided  by  the  rules  of  the  Library  or  by  special  ar- 
rangement with  the  Librarian  in  charge. 

DATE   BORROWED 

DATE   DUE 

DATE   BORROWED 

DATE   DUE 

r*  r*  r   ' 

r^  /*■.  ^  0 

i      FEB 

I  O  £.UUU 

•V 

1 
i 

1 

C28(l  140)M100 

COLUMBIA  UNIVERSITY  LIBRARIES 


0038766221 


92H\^a 


B 


